Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Scarborough Gas Bill.

Bill committed.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

London Local Authorities (Superannuation) Temporary Provisions [Lords].

Report, referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred until Tuesday next.

Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BUILDING TRADE.

Mr. McGOVERN: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of building trade workers who are unemployed; the numbers and trades of each section; and the amount of unemployment benefit paid each week?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Insured persons in the building industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 25th January, 1932.

Occupation.

Number.


Carpenters
…
37,452


Bricklayers
…
21,630


Masons
…
5,390


Slaters and Tilers
…
1,797


Plasterers
…
7,825


Painters
…
57,450


Plumbers
…
9,009


Labourers to above
…
72,028


All other occupations
…
61,206


Total
…
273,787

Accounts are not kept of benefit or transitional payments paid in separate trades, but assuming that the average rates for men and boys apply to this trade, the approximate total cost would be £215,000 for the week.

Mr. HICKS: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state what is the total amount of unemployment and transitional benefit paid to unemployed building trade operatives and public works employés respectively, for the three months ended 31st January, 1932?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Accounts are not kept of the amount paid in separate trades, but assuming that the average rates for men and boys apply to building trade operatives and public works employés, the total amount of insurance benefit and transitional payments for the period mentioned would be £2,595,000 for building trade operatives, and £1,017,000 for public works employés.

Mr. HICKS: In view of the colossal figures of the unemployed in the building trade—they are well over 400,000—does the Minister not consider it necessary to report the matter to the Government and see if something cannot be done to facilitate the provision of work?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Of course, the Government are well aware of the position in the building trade. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I really cannot add anything to what I have said before.

ANOMALIES REGULATIONS.

Mr. McGOVERN: 2 and 3.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he can state the number of persons in Glasgow whose cases were considered under the Anomalies Act by the court of referees; and how many were refused benefit;
(2) the number of persons whose cases have been before the courts of referees under the Anomalies Act, and the number refused benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Up to 31st January, 1932, 200,496 cases had been considered by courts of referees in Great Britain under the Anomalies Regulations, and benefit was disallowed in 165,060 cases. The corresponding figures for the Glasgow area were 9,009 and 7,368.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of these alarming figures, as to the numbers being cut off benefit, would the Minister see that a large number of these cases are reviewed so that justice is done?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I am doing my utmost to see that justice is being done. I have said on more than one occasion that I am watching the operation of these regulations, and if it should turn out that I should wish to put another report before the committee I shall do so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that Glasgow shows a far higher percentage than the rest of the country? Will he make inquiry as to the reason? Further, is the sum to be saved likely to justify the optimism of the last Government?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The second part of that supplementary question does not arise out of the question on the Paper, but I have no reason to suppose that the
estimates will not be realised. With regard to the first supplementary question, I have worked the figures out otherwise; I have worked it out that the proportion in Glasgow is about the same. If the hon. Member likes to put a further question on the Paper, I will get the information.

Mr. PRICE: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state how many of the 165,060 claims disallowed by courts of estimates under the Anomalies Regulations relate to married women; the number of those whose claims were disallowed and who continued to register; and bow many of them have since obtained employment?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Of the 165,060 claims disallowed by courts of referees under the Anomalies Regulations up to the end of January, 1932, 141,217 were in respect of married women under Class (d). It is possible that the numbers of separate individuals concerned are slightly below these figures. It is estimated that at 25th January, 1932, approximately 16,000 married women whose claims had been disallowed were continuing to register at Employment Exchanges. The number who had obtained employment is not available.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state how many cases for transitional payments have been dealt with in the area of the Colwyn Bay urban district to the latest available date; in how many cases have full benefits been allowed; in how many cases partial benefits; and how many applicants have been disallowed any benefits?

Sir H. BETTERTON: These figures are available only for the areas covered by public assistance committees. I regret, therefore, that separate statistics for the area of the Colwyn Bay urban district are not available.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the Minister aware that severe hardship to the unemployed is involved in some of these seaside resorts, especially on the North Wales coast, by the operation of transitional benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir; I was not aware of that fact.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the percentage of cases in which decisions by the public assistance committees under the means test have been reviewed and the awards increased; and if he will also give the percentages for Scotland?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that there are no statistics on this point.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it has been possible to form any estimate of the amount of money saved to date by the subjection of claimants for transitional benefit to means tests by the public assistance committees?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am sorry that I am still unable to give my hon. and gallant Friend any sufficiently close estimate. I will inform him as soon as I am able to do so, which I hope may be some time next month.

Mr. HICKS: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the names of the public assistance authorities who have protested against the means test in connection with transitional benefit for the unemployed; and whether any officials of his Department have interviewed members of the protesting authorities, and to what effect?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have prepared a full reply, which, with the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Such protests as I have received have taken one of two forms. A few authorities have adopted resolutions protesting against the application of any means test, and for obvious reasons I have been able to do no more than take note of their resolutions. A few other authorities have protested against the administration of a means test by public assistance authorities, and in such cases interviews, where necessary, have taken place with the result that all authorities are in fact co-operating. The public assistance authorities in the first group include Coventry, East Ham, Hull, Lincoln, Monmouthshire and St. Helens; and in the second group Darlington, Hull, Lanarkshire, Merthyr Tydfil, Middlesbrough, Sheffield, Stoke-on-Trent and Wigan.

Mr. LUNN: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government are con templating any change in the administration of the means test and, if so, can he make any announcement on the subject?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot add anything to the statements made by my right hon. Friend and myself on this subject in the course of the Debate on Wednesday last, 17th February.

Mr. LUNN: Are the Government quite satisfied with the administration by the public assistance committees of the means test as it is at present?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present on 17th February, when I went very fully into the question of the administration, and expressed my views on it.

BENEFIT.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour if it is still the estimate of the Ministry that the average amount of unemployment for 1932–33 will be 3,000,000 per week; and, if not, whether he proposes to increase the rates of benefit which were reduced on account of the large expenditure involved in such a large increase of unemployment?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Without attempting any definite forecast, I think there is good reason to hope that the average unemployment during 1931–2 will be substantially lower than 3,000,000. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative. These economies are imperative whether or not any figure such as 3,000,000 is reached.

UNEMPLOYED WORKERS' DEPUTATION.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour why he has refused a request from the national unemployed workers' movement asking him to receive a deputation; and if he will reconsider his decision?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It did not appear to me that any useful purpose would be served by receiving this deputation. I am not prepared to reconsider the decision.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that this body has a considerable section of supporters, could not the Minister receive a deputation? Has it not been the custom of all past Ministers of Labour to see representative bodies and hear what they have to say on an important subject?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In this matter I am following exactly the policy of ray predecessor and of the Labour Government, and I am not prepared to recognise this organisation as entitled to speak for Labour.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the policy of the Government in all matters concerning the Labour Ministry to follow the example of the last Government?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir; only when I think they were right.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the fact that the position of the unemployed has worsened considerably, would the Minister not reconsider the matter and meet a body that certainly caters for a large section of the unemployed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is repeating a question which has already been asked.

Mr. THORNE: Can the Minister state the object of this organisation having a discussion with him?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think the hon. Member is probably as well aware as I am of the object.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. PRICE: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in accordance with past practice, it is proposed to consider and bring to the attention of local authorities the conditions to be attached to the granting of financial assistance in respect of unemployment relief schemes for the winter of 1932–33?

Sir H. BETTERTON: For reasons which I explained on 17th February it is not proposed to continue these grants on the same basis as hitherto, but subject to the necessary prolongation of the powers given by the Development Act, which expires next August, the Government will be prepared to entertain applications whether from local authorities or from public utility undertakings for a limited measure of assistance towards developments calculated to increase the national income. Particulars of the assistance available will be made known in due course.

GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. JOHN: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any report on the work of the Unemployment Grants Committee, including information regarding Trea-
sury commitments in respect of unemployment relief schemes, is to be published?

Sir H. BETTERTON: A report on the work of the Unemployment Grants Committee for the period ended 31st December, 1931, is being printed and will be available shortly as a Command Paper.

Mr. LUNN: Can the Minister say when it will be obtainable?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I asked that question this morning, and I was told that it is now being printed and is being pushed forward as much as possible. I am unable to name a definite date when it will be available, but it will be as soon as the printers can get it out.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN ACTORS.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the result of the deputation he received this week on the subject of admission to this country of foreign artistes?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt have seen from the Press announcement issued on Tuesday, the deputation was informed that there has been no change of policy in regard to the admission of foreign actors, and that for some considerable time no foreign actor has been refused admission. I hope that if any misunderstanding has arisen, whether in this country or abroad, as to the Government's policy in this matter, it will now be removed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARTMOOR PRISON.

Captain DOWER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any loyal convicts have been attacked at Dartmoor prison since the mutiny; and, if so, under what circumstances?

Mr. O'CONNOR: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now make any further statement as to the position at Dartmoor prison?

Mr. STOURTON: 33.
asked the Home Secretary the circumstances in which one of the loyal convicts at Dartmoor prison came to be attacked and injured on 16th February by two other convicts; the nature of the injuries he received; and what steps he proposes to take to protect other loyal convicts from similar attacks?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): In answering these questions, I propose, with the leave of the House, to snake a rather full statement. Since the statement I made on 8th February, no incident of importance has occurred at Dartmoor prison. I would take this opportunity of contradicting a series of sensational reports which have appeared in the Press, and which are either altogether baseless or have only the smallest foundation in fact. The story published recently of a murderous attack by a convict at Dartmoor on a warder, is wholly unfounded. The account that one or more convicts, who assisted the authorities during the disturbance, had been assaulted by other prisoners is also completely untrue. On certain occasions recently, during the evening, there has been some singing and shouting by a few of the convicts who, having been active in the disorder, have been isolated in a seperate building; hut the reports in some newspapers that there has been "a roaring as of wild animals," which kept people awake through the night in Princetown, is a sheer fabrication. I am definitely assured by the Governor that the prison has been perfectly quiet every night.
The statement in the Press to-day that a large number of warders are on the sick list "as a result of the nerve-shattering effect of the pandemonium" is also untrue. The number on the sick list in a staff of about 150 is four above the normal. The circumstantial accounts of Dartmoor warders having been brought to the Home Office to attend a court of inquiry, and of a number of convicts having been transferred, with elaborate precautions, to London, are also untrue. No warder and no convict has been brought to London from Dartmoor. Similarly, a very detailed description, published not long ago, of a violent assault by a prisoner at Wormwood Scrubs on the Governor, with a full description of the injuries inflicted, was a complete fabrication. There was no assault either on the Governor or on any other officer. I feel sure that the House will join in condemning the publication of sensational and fictitious reports such as these, which convey a completely false impression, both at home and abroad, of prison conditions.
I would add that the arrangements for bringing the Dartmoor convicts, who will be charged with offences in connection with the disturbance, before a Court of Assize or the Board of Visitors, as the case may be, are being expedited as much as possible. Meanwhile the worst offenders, about 30 in number, who are in the separate building, are at work during a part of the day in the corridor outside their cells, and have also an hour's exercise daily. They are not, and have not been, deprived of the ordinary use of books from the library. Among the main body of the convicts the usual prison routine has long since been restored, and the ordinary discipline is completely maintained. Since I entered the House a report has reached me that this morning two prisoners did assault warders, but not seriously.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate bringing to the Bar of the House any of the journalists or editors responsible for these statements?

Sir H. SAMUEL: It is hardly worth while taking such serious notice of those statements.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that a number of these convicts will probably have to stand trial by jury for their alleged outrages, can nothing be done in this matter in view of the likelihood of Press reports interfering with the normal course of justice. After all, the Press has an influence on ordinary human beings, and I wish to know if anything can be done to stop what may be the influence of these reports on the jury at this trial?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not think that any of these Press reports relate to any individual convicts, or are likely to prejudice their trial.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Home Secretary has given a very full answer to this question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But this is a very urgent matter—

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes further information he ought to put down another question. He must give a chance to other hon. Members who have questions on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I say this—

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. Member is raising a point of Order, there is nothing more to be said.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My point of Order is that while the answer which we have got is very full, concerning this matter, the trial of these men is likely to take place at an early date; and I submit that urgency entitles me to ask the Home Secretary a question on a matter which may affect the course of justice in the case of these men.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put that question and has received au answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATERNITY CASE, BOLTON.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a recent paternity case tried at the Bolton County Police Court, wherein a man who acknowledged his responsibility escaped his liability, because the justices had to dismiss the application owing to the claimant being of too weak an intellect to understand the nature of an oath; and whether he will introduce, at an early date, legislation to remedy this state of things?

Sir H. SAMUEL: This case is most exceptional and probably unique. The complainant appears to have been of insufficient capacity to understand the nature of an oath or of the proceedings, and it would cause injustice if an order could he made against a man denying paternity without the evidence of the mother. In this case the man is reported to have been willing to admit paternity and, if so, the right course to pursue would be to invite him to enter into an enforceable agreement for the payment of maintenance to the mother.

Sir J. HASLAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey that reply to the right quarter?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not think that it is a matter for the bench. Perhaps the hon. Member could convey it to the parties concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

ORGANISATION.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 21.
asked the Home Secretary what action, if any,
he proposes to take on the report of His Majesty's inspector of constabulary suggesting better co-ordinated effort between the detective forces of the country, and for the provision of wider records for reference in respect of the activities of criminals?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The whole question has already received a good deal of informal consideration in consultation with His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary and others. I recognise the great importance of securing the closest possible co-operation and co-ordination of effort in a police system such as ours which consists of a considerable number of separate forces, and I am contemplating the appointment of a committee, consisting of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary and of representatives of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and of the County and Borough Chief Constables, and the Home Office, to formulate specific proposals.

Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the report mentioned in this question is available for members in the Vote Office?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

INVESTIGATIONS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 27.
asked the Home Secretary why the House was not informed at the time that the order with regard to the right of question by the police was withdrawn in 1930, since such order was made in view of the report of the committee of inquiry into the Savage case?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Before this order was issued, the then Home Secretary explained in this House that it was to be provisional only and might be revoked or altered as a result of the report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure; and its revocation on the 11th August, 1930, followed recommendation XIV at page 114 of the Commission's Report.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this Order was the subject of Debate in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman state why Parliament was not consulted before it was withdrawn?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I understand that a copy of the Judge's Rules was placed in the Vote Office in July, 1930, dealing with this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRES.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the number of fires which have taken place recently all over the country, the origin of which, though uncertain, indicates incendiarism, he will take steps to revive fire inquests?

Sir H. SAMUEL: There are no statistics available of the number of fires that take place, nor is there any reason to believe that there is any increase of incendiarism. The statistics of the Metropolitan Police District of cases of arson indicate a diminution rather than an increase during the last 10 years. Statutory powers for the holding of inquiries by a coroner into the causes of fires, where no fatality has occurred, have been given only in the case of the City of London by a local Act, and the extension of these provisions to the rest of the country was not recommended by the Royal Commission on Fire Brigades and Fire Prevention, which reported in 1923. Inquiries, whether by coroner's inquest or by some other method into the causes of fire, would require legislation which in any case could not be introduced in present circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (REORGANISATION SCHEME).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Home Secretary what prisons, if any, it is proposed to close down under the reorganisation scheme to be carried out?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The scheme of reorganisation to which I referred on the 8th of February involves changes in the distribution of the convict population, and a very considerable reduction in the numbers at, Dartmoor, but not the complete closing of any prison. I may mention that since 1914, 29 out of a total of 56 prisons have been closed.

Captain MACDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate transferring prisoners from Dartmoor?

Sir H. SAMUEL: No fresh prisoners have been sent to Dartmoor since last November.

Captain MACDONALD: I said "from" Dartmoor.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The prisoners will be transferred gradually to other prisons.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what prisons they will be transferred?

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINOR OFFENCES (DRINK).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether the latest police statistics shows an increase or a decrease in the number of young men charged with petty offences as a result of drink?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I regret that there are no statistics giving the information desired.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements are going about the country alleging that there is an increase; and, in fairness to the younger generation, will he state the facts?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I regret that I have not statistics which would be sufficiently accurate to meet the reports to which the hon. Members refers.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it the case that more often than not in the police court, in children's cases, the police say that a man was under the influence of drink when they arrested him?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The influence of drink is very often a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary how many aliens were granted certificates of naturalisation for the year ended December, 1931; and how many of these were originally British subjects?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The Annual Return for 1931 has not yet been compiled, but the monthly lists published in the London Gazette—which approximately coincide with the Return—contain the names of 2,186 aliens whose oaths of allegiance were registered at the Home Office in 1931. This figure includes 843 persons who had previously been British subjects, and in addition a certain num-
ber (not distinguished in the lists) who were of British parentage but did not themselves become British subjects at birth.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of the fact that these figures only show a proportion of one-seventh British-born subjects, and also show that 97 Russians were naturalised in the month of December alone, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to give facilities for British-born subjects who are now aliens, and who wish to settle in this country, to do so?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Every consideration is given to such persons who come within the statutory conditions.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are British-born women who have to be aliens because they have married foreigners?

Sir H. SAMUEL: On the other hand, we sometimes have the advantage of foreign women who marry British subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — THEFTS FROM CARS, LONDON.

Mr. STOURTON: 29.
asked the Home Secretary, in the 479 cases of theft of baggage and other articles from cars reported in the centre of London for the period 1st November, 1931, to 17th February, 1932, how many convictions were secured against the 46 persons arrested?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Of the 46 persons arrested, 23 were convicted, 16 bound over and two committed for trial; two were discharged and three stand remanded.

Mr. STOURTON: Does not my right hon. Friend consider these figures to be very disquieting, and that they indicate that more police should be taken away from traffic duty, as so many of these cases have gone undetected?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I think the figures are not such as we can view with any satisfaction at all, and the Commissioner of Police has the matter in hand with a view to a re-allocation of the duties of the force under his command.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that assaults against children are going up, and that it is absolutely vital, therefore, to increase the number of women police?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 30.
asked the Home Secretary how many partially disabled men have established a claim for full compensation under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1931?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I regret that I am not at present in possession of this information, but I hope to arrange for a return from the County and Sheriff Courts of the orders made under the Act up to the end of last year. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOG RACING TRACKS (TOTALISATORS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the Home Secretary how many totalisators are in use at greyhound racing-tracks, licensed and unlicensed; and whether any steps have been taken to establish their legality or otherwise?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I have no information which would enable me to give an answer to the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the case of Everett and another v. Shand and others (1931, 2 K.B. 522), which is, so far as I am aware, the only case which has been taken in the High Court.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think we ought to keep this information up-to-date, so that we can know what developments are taking place in this connection?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That is not a matter, I think, for the Home Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR COACHES (SPEED, LONDON).

Mr. MABANE: 34.
asked the Home Secretary what speed-limit is imposed upon Green Line omnibuses in Central
London; and whether his attention has been called to the danger to other road users resulting from the speed of these omnibuses?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The speed limit imposed upon Green Line coaches is 30 miles per hour. The Commissioner of Police informs me that there is no reason to believe that these vehicles are driven at higher speeds than other vehicles of the same class or that the danger caused by them is greater.

Mr. MABANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he will take to see that the new speed limit is not brought into the same contempt as the old, as it is common knowledge that these omnibuses travel at 40 miles an hour on main London thoroughfares?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The police do their best in the matter.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the time-tables within which the drivers are compelled to run these omnibuses practically compel the drivers to break the law in this respect?

Sir H. SAMUEL: If that is so, proceedings can be taken, and proceedings are taken in many cases.

Mr. DAVIES: Are the proceedings taken against the owners of the omnibuses or the drivers in that case?

Sir H. SAMUEL: It depends on the nature of the offence.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Cannot proceedings be taken against the owners and not against the drivers?

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send instructions to the Area Traffic Commissioners, whose job it is, to see that time-tables are not drawn up in that way?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am glad to think that that matter relates to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BRITISH BACON (HOSPITALS).

Mr. HURD: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the acceptance by hospitals which receive Govern-
merit grants of tenders for Polish bacon at as low a price as 4¾d. per pound, such bacon being subsidised by the Polish Government, he will take steps to encourage these hospitals to buy British bacon?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I am not aware of the hospitals to which my hon. Friend refers, but a circular letter has been issued by my Department to local authorities urging them to make use, to the utmost extent practicable, of goods of home production.

Mr. HURD: If I bring a case to my right hon. Friend's notice, will he communicate with the local authorities concerned?

Sir H. YOUNG: I should be most interested to learn of any particulars of which my hon. Friend can inform me and to consider action upon the particulars.

DUTCH TREES AND SHRUBS.

Mr. WELLS: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his inspectors have condemned, on account of disease, any imported Dutch trees or shrubs offered for sale in auction markets during the last three months; and, if so, in which markets?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the question he addressed to me on the 10th December last. Since that date no imported Dutch trees or shrubs offered for sale in auction markets have been condemned by inspectors of my Department on account of disease.

REORGANISATION COMMISSION.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the date he will be able to set up the reorganisation commission for milk and the commission of inquiry into the bacon trade; and what steps he is taking to ascertain the wishes of potato growers regarding a commission of reorganisation for their industry?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The matters referred to in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question are receiving my close attention, but I cannot yet give him the information desired. I am sure that as soon as potato growers decide to avail themselves of the undertaking included in
my statement on policy made to the House on the 11th February, they will acquaint me of the fact.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of great urgency? If I put a question next week will he be able to give me a more satisfactory answer?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot give a definite reply to that. If it be a matter of urgency I would point out that it is already in hand.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to use his Department to help agriculturists to help themselves?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Viscount WEYMOUTH: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was his reply to the National Pig Industrial Council in answer to their scheme for the re-organisation of the pig and pig products industry in this country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No communication has been addressed to the Pig Industry Council on the subject of its report, but I have discussed the position with the Chairman and am arranging to meet the Council at an early date.

BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the Cantley and Fly sugar-beet factories have been able to pay on account already sums amounting to 40s. per ton of beet without any additional Government assistance under the British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Regulations, 1931, he will consider submitting the demands of the industry for additional assistance to the examination of an impartial committee, containing representatives experienced in business matters, to ensure that no further Government assistance shall be given to this industry?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. GROVES: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of imported raw sugar refined by subsidised beet-sugar factories during the off season in 1930–31 and 1931–32; and whether, in view of the fact that these factories are largely foreign-owned and owe their existence
to State subsidy, he will consider the possibility of limiting the quantity of imported raw sugar which may be refined in these factories and of providing that resultant profits, if any, should be utilised to repay loans which may have been guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: During the 1930–31 "off" season beet-sugar factories refined 195,000 tons of imported raw sugar: the figures for 1931–32 will not be available for some time as the "off" season continues until beet-sugar manufacture is resumed in the autumn. With regard to the second part of the question, I have no power to limit "off" season refining by beet-sugar factories or to require the factories to apply any profits of such operations in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

FOOD LABELS (VINEGAR).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Food and Drugs Act in such a way that bottles of vinegar and pickles shall be labelled so as to state whether they contain malt vinegar or imitation vinegar?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have taken note of this suggestion in connection with others relating to the composition and labelling of articles of food, but I could not undertake to introduce legislation on the subject at the present time.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the protection of the consuming public, in view of the fact that malt vinegar has definite valuable phosphates therein, whereas acetic acid, or imitation vinegar, is produced from wood or from substances having a mineral basis?

MILK (BUTTER-FAT).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that under the existing law milk may be sold containing less than 3 per cent. butter-fat, Government standard, provided that the farmer can prove that such milk is as it came from the cow, he will consider the revision of the law in this matter?

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the law does not require that milk shall contain any particular percentage of fat and that it is not an offence to sell milk containing less than 3 per cent. of fat, he will alter the sale of milk regulations which lay down that milk containing less than 3 per cent. of fat is presumed to be adulterated until the contrary is proved and whether he will put the onus of proof on the prosecutor as is the case in other similar regulations?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have received representations with regard to the amendment of the law in the directions suggested, and will consider the matter in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

CHINESE EGGS.

Mr. DREWE: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the liquid or frozen eggs, not in shell, which are imported from China, conform to the same standard of purity which is demanded in this country?

Sir H. YOUNG: These articles are subject to examination in this country and I have not received any reports that any recent consignments have been found to be impure. There is no special standard of purity, but these eggs are required to be free from preservative and are liable to seizure and condemnation if found to be unsound.

IRISH AND CANADIAN MEAT.

Mr. HURD: 53.
asked the Minister of Health what percentage of livers taken from Irish Free State cattle at Birkenhead is condemned in whole or in part, respectively, upon slaughter, and the figures for Canadian cattle; also what percentage of Irish Free State and Canadian cattle, respectively, when killed at Birkenhead, are found to be suffering from tuberculosis?

Sir H. YOUNG: No separate figures are available in respect of the Trish Free State. I am informed that the percentages of livers wholly condemned in 1931 were 19.5 in Irish cattle and 7.3 in Canadian cattle. The figures for cattle affected with tuberculosis were 5 per cent. in the case of Irish cattle and 0.6 per cent. in the case of Canadian cattle.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL FEES).

Dr. HILLMAN: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that he has decided not to proceed with the proposed redraft of parts of the medical benefit regulations dealing with fee-charging, and that the Insurance Acts Committee of the British Medical Association acquiesced in this decison, he will take the opportunity of making it clear that there was no connection between the proposed redraft and the deduction from insurance doctors' remuneration made as an emergency economy last October?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am glad to have an opportunity of repeating what I indicated in reply to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend on the 3rd December, that the proposal to redraft the relevant parts of the regulations was initiated by the Department in September, 1930, and was therefore entirely unconnected with the proposals for securing emergency economies in. the cost of medical benefit which became necesary a year later.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the proposed draft has been dropped?

Sir H. YOUNG: The proposed draft was dropped, because it was considered not to be necessary.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that this alteration in the conditions of the insured contributors was agreed to in September, and that it has not been altered in any way by the present holder of the office of Minister of Health? Is not this another attack on the workers?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BRITISH SLATES.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether, with regard to contracts for the building of houses by local authorities, his Department makes any stipulation as to whether British or foreign slates should be used for roofing where slates are being used?

Sir H. YOUNG: Section 10 (1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, prohibits the imposition of any express stipulation of this kind. I am, however, sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular letter which urges local authorities
to make use of goods and materials of home production or manufacture to the utmost extent practicable.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Would my right hon. Friend be surprised to learn that a slate quarry in my constituency has recently lost an important contract for slates for roofing council houses, owing to the apparent bias of the officials of the Ministry in favour of French slates, and is he further aware that the Welsh slates are infinitely superior in quality to foreign slates?

Sir H. YOUNG: These are matters which I have appropriately dealt with in the circular to which I have referred.

TENEMENT BUILDINGS AND SMALL HOUSES.

Miss CAZALET: 46.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the financial situation, he has issued any instructions to local authorities with regard to the erection of cheaper tenement buildings in big cities similar to those issued in Circular 1238 in regard to cheaper houses?

STATEMENT showing the average cost of the under-mentioned dwellings in contracts let, and in direct labour schemes commenced by local authorities (other than the London County Council.)


Quarter ended.
Non-parlour houses.
Non-parlour flats in buildings of three or more storeys.





£
£


Quarter ended March, 1931
…
…
345
576


Quarter ended June, 1931
…
…
331
507


Quarter ended September, 1931
…
…
333
535


Quarter ended December, 1931
…
…
327
617


Year ended December, 1931
…
…
333
542


These costs include the costs of paths, drains and fences, but exclude the cost of land, roads, sewers and architects' fees.

Miss CAZALET: 47.
asked the Minister of Health whether, as a result of the recent Circular 1,238 issued by his Department to local authorities, he will state how many schemes have been submitted of the small type of house covering 760 square feet to be let at a rental of 10s. per week?

Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that precise figures are not available. Since the issue of the Circular the erection of 5,388 houses, few of which materially exceed the size named, has been approved. The

Sir GERALD HURST: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give any figures as to the cost of accommodation of the working classes when provided in the ordinary type of cottage or in a tenement, respectively; and whether, in view of the importance of cheaply built tenements in the large towns, he is in a position to issue any information to local authorities as to the most economical methods of building?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which I am asked. Proposals for the erection of tenements are carefully watched to secure the greatest possible measure of economy, but up to the present any building over three storeys in height is found to involve much heavier expenditure than is involved in the provision of equivalent accommodation in cottages. I hope to be able, as the result of inquiries now in progress, to issue some suggestions in this regard to the local authorities concerned.

Following are the figures:

rents to be charged for these houses should not generally exceed the figure mentioned.

Captain GUNSTON: Does that 10s. include rates?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that in London alone 30,000 families are living in basements, and will he do nothing to stop the building of these flats in London?

Sir H. YOUNG: If the Noble Lady had listened to previous answers, she would know that the policy is to promote the provision of accommodation at a price which is possible for the tenants.

SALFORD (RENTS).

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 48 and 49.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that certain landlords of property in Muriel Street, Lower Broughton, and in other parts of Salford, in addition to charging increases of rent from 13s. 3d. to 25s. per week on a change of tenancy are demanding and have received in many cases £5 key money for which they refuse to give a receipt; and will he cause a local inquiry to be made with a view to legislation to protect the tenants, a number of whom are unemployed;
(2) whether he is aware that in a large are of Salford, between Grecian Street and Vernon Street, practically every house is rented for the purpose of subletting at rents totalling much more than the original rent, and that in one case where the original rent is 17s. 11d. per week moms are rented by seven families, of whom three who are in receipt of unemployment benefit pay 34s. per week in rent; and will he cause a local inquiry to be made with a view to legislation to put an end to this practice?

Sir H. YOUNG: The facts in the cases referred to have not previously been brought to my notice. I shall be interested to receive any further information on the matter with which my hon. Friend can furnish me. My hon. Friend is doubtless familiar with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which reported last year, and I can add nothing at present to what has already been stated as to the scope of amending legislation.

Mr. MORRIS: If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the information he desires, will he take action to refund this money to the unfortunate tenants?

Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Member will do me the favour of providing me with the information in question, I will consider what action is appropriate.

Mr. McGOVERN: Seeing that there are a large number of cases where house factors and landlords are demanding not
only key money, but back rent from previous tenants, will he take steps to make that action illegal?

Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Member will be so good as to supply me with information, I will consider what action is required.

Mr. McGOVERN: Yes, I will give my own case.

RURAL AREAS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 52.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses completed and in course of erection, respectively, in rural areas under the Housing Act of 1930 to the latest available date?

Sir H. YOUNG: Fifty-one houses have been completed for the purposes of the Act of 1930 in rural districts; 276 houses which may be used for those purposes are in course of erection.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department doing anything to encourage or to discourage activity in this direction?

Sir H. YOUNG: The Department will act in the spirit of the Act.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question, whether the Department are encouraging or discouraging activity under the scheme?

Sir H. YOUNG: The question implies something which is irrelevant to the activities of the Department.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to discourage it like the last Government did?

Mr. HICKS: Are we to conclude from the Minister's statement that the number given is the total contribution of the Government to the Housing Act, which provided for 40,000 houses to be built in the rural areas during 1932?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid that the hon. Member has not grasped the burden of the question. This Act is not one that characteristically applies to rural areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS).

Mr. HICKS: 44.
asked the Minister of Health what is the amount of loans sanctioned by the Ministry of Health for
public works, other than houses, during the months of October, November, December, and January?

Sir H. YOUNG: The amount of loans sanctioned for all purposes, other than housing, during the period from the 1st October, 1931, to the 31st January, 1932, is £10,494,417.

Mr. HICKS: Is any encouragement given to people to apply for loans in view of the extraordinary development in unemployment?

Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend knows how this matter has been dealt with in the Circular which is familiar to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL POWERS OF DEPARTMENTS (REPORT).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he hopes to receive a report from the Committee on Legislation and Judicial Powers of Departments which was set up in October, 1929?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I understand that the Committee completed the hearing of evidence in November, 1930, and that it has since been actively engaged in the preparation of its report. This it has found to be an intricate and arduous task, and some delay was caused by the regretted illness of Lord Donoughmore, which involved his resignation of the chairmanship. He was succeeded in May last by Sir Leslie Scott. I am informed that the Committee's report has now reached its final stages but it is not yet possible to say when it will be submitted to the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. HACKING: In view of the great importance of this report, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to speed it up?

Mr. BALDWIN: Indeed, yes. It will comprise a very great amount of printing, for it is a long and detailed report, but I will do all I can to expedite it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. TINKER: 54.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there are a
number of cases of children who have been in receipt of allowance under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts who have never been able to attend school owing to infirmities; that when they have turned the age of 14 years the allowance has been taken away owing to not attending at school for full-time instruction; and will he consider amending the Act so as to allow such cases to continue drawing the allowance until 16 years of age?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the existence of a small number of cases of the kind to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think it would be appropriate to make specific provision for this exceptional class in the contributory pensions scheme.

Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cases mentioned in the question will feel the full force of the food taxes, and that there will be no corresponding redress unless he alters the Act?

Sir H. YOUNG: The point is this, that exceptional cases of the kind to which the hon. Member refers would really be more appropriately dealt with under other provisions of the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

LICENSED PREMISES (DUTY).

Sir A. KNOX: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of reducing the tax on licensed premises?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My hon. and gallant Friend will not, I am sure, expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

BEER DUTY.

Sir A. KNOX: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, taking into consideration the decreased yield of Income Tax on the profits of breweries, and the profits of sugar, hop, malt, and grain producers, the loss of rates and taxes and licence duty on licensed premises and the cost of increased unemployment in the brewery trade, he can now estimate the net yield to the Government from the increased tax on beer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that data are not available for such an estimate as my hon. and gallant Friend asks for.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not already evident that this additional tax has defeated its own object, that it is really killing a deserving trade, and that it is not bringing in the revenue?

Mr. LEWIS: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the quantity of beer, standard barrels, upon which duty was collected in the last three months of 1930 and of 1931, respectively; and the total amount of the duty so collected in each case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will send my hon. Friend a table giving the figures desired.

CAPITAL EXPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any indication as to when the restrictions on the export of capital will be withdrawn, in view of the effect of these restrictions on the recovery of our export trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no evidence that the existing restrictions hamper export trade; but the position will be watched and the restrictions withdrawn as soon as it is considered that this step can be taken without detriment to the national interests.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the export of capital takes place in gold How can we export capital except by the export of goods?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That appears to be the question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was putting.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The question on the Paper is whether the restriction on the export of British capital will be removed, and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the injury that it is doing to the export trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My answer is that there is no evidence of injury to the export trade.

Mr. LAMBERT: Who judges in this matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Governor of the Bank of England?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will bring this question up at the earliest possible opportunity.

NATIONAL DEBT REDEMPTION (GIFTS).

Sir PAUL LATHAM: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total value of the sums voluntarily given to relieve the National Debt since 23rd August, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amounts in question are in round figures as follow:



£


Cash (including the proceeds of gifts in kind and surrendered Savings Certificates)
65,000


Government Securities for cancellation
44,000



£109,000


In Addition a number of persons have made gifts to the nation by surrendering claims to pensions or other payments due to them from public funds.

LIQUOR DUTIES.

Mr. GROVES: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated revenue derived from beer home-brewed and beer imported, spirits home-made and spirits imported, and wines and British wines, during the calendar years 1930 and 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the figures asked for.

Viscountess ASTOR: Cannot Members of the National Government ask questions relating to the foods and necessities of the people rather than about hops?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORT DUTIES BILL.

Dr. SALTER: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new Customs duties to be levied under the Import Duties Bill will be collected on goods now stored in the ports in bonded warehouses or whether the duties will apply only to goods imported as from 1st March?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Goods lying in a bonded warehouse which are at present free of any Customs duty will not in any case be liable to the general ad
valorem duty. Composite goods (i.e., goods which are already liable to an existing Customs duty in respect of some part or ingredient only) will fall to be dealt with under Clause 8 of the Import Duties Bill if delivered from a bonded warehouse for home consumption on or after the 1st March.

Mr. GUINNESS: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what basis the duty on foreign imported films, under the Import Duties Bill, will be calculated?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Imported foreign cinematograph films are

The following table shows, in respect of the year 1931, the total quantity and declared value of the imports of fruit and vegetables into the United Kingdom and the domestic exports of potatoes and fertilisers from the United Kingdom in the trade with the Canary Islands.


—
Unit of Quantity.
Quantity.
Declared Value.


Total imports into the United Kingdom consigned from the Canary Islands:


£


Bananas, raw
Bunch
891,522
486,159


Other fruit, including dried and preserve
Cwt.
8,872
35,964


Potatoes, raw
Cwt.
224,307
220,478


Tomatoes, raw
Cwt.
1,298,342
1,871,300


Other vegetables, including dried and preserved
Value
—
3,838


Total value of above
Value
—
2,617,739


Domestic exports from the United Kingdom consigned to the Canary Islands:





Potatoes, raw
Cwt
92,093
32,246


Fertilisers: Ammonium sulphate
Ton
22,149
138,283


Other sorts*
Ton
135
719


Total value of above
Value
—
171,248


* So far as the information is available from the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

FACTORY SITES (FOREIGN FIRMS).

Mr. CONANT: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in recommending sites for new factories to those foreign firms who apply to him, he will bear in mind the desirability of factories being started in the present centres of population rather than in areas where surplus labour does not at present exist?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Contact between Government Departments and foreign firms or their agents who are intending to manufacture in this country arises for the most part only in connection' with appli-

liable to an existing duty of Customs, and therefore are exempted from the operation of the Import Duties Bill under Clause 1 (2) (a) of that Bill.

CANARY ISLANDS.

Mr. JANNER: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of imports of fruit and vegetables from the Canary Islands and of British exports of potatoes and fertilisers thereto in 1931?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

cations for the admission of foreign personnel. The Board of Trade do not undertake to advise as to available premises and sites, but attention is drawn, whenever occasion offers, to the considerations which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Where application is made to the Board of Trade, are they in a position to put forward a list of desirable centres for these factories? Would not that be preferable to allowing them to be placed all round London?

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has now arrived when some concerted planning of the placing of these factories can be undertaken by the State?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I do not think it rests with the Board of Trade to make a selection of one district over another. If any information is asked for we are always glad to do what we can in the matter.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any definite information that firms have already come here?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an estimate of the cost of the annual census of production for which power is taken in Section 9 of the Import Duties Bill?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The arrangements for the statistics of production, for which powers are proposed to be taken by the Board of Trade under Clause 9 of the Bill, will be combined as far as possible with the existing arrangements under which a general census of production is taken at longer intervals. In these circumstances no precise estimate of costs can be given, but the additional expenditure for the coming financial year will be negligible, and so far as can be foreseen that for 1933–34 should not exceed £5,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That takes no account of the expense to which manufacturers will be put?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I have no means of ascertaining what that will amount to.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORKS (POSTAGE STAMPS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated cost of extending the Stationery Office printing works at Harrow in order to provide facilities for the production of postage stamps; and whether, in view of the need of economy at the present time, he will consider vetoing this proposal?

Major ELLIOT: The Stationery Office printing works at Harrow have not been and are not being extended to provide facilities for the production of postage stamps.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS EXAMINATION (WOMEN INSPECTORS).

Miss CAZALET: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the nature of personal luggage to be examined at the ports, he will consider employing a proportion of women customs officers who would have specialised knowledge of many of the goods to be examined?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) on 11th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. COOK: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the Government will open negotiations with the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty with a view to arriving at an agreement in relation to the payment of tithe, having regard to the depression in agriculture?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not propose to approach the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty in the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand, however, that the governors have already announced that in cases of extreme necessity, where application is made to them and the facts are put before them, they are prepared to consider special arrangements for the settlement of arrears of tithe rentcharge payable to them by owner-occupiers of land in the areas particularly affected by the present depression, even where these arrangements might involve some remission.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask whether the facts just stated by the right hon. Gentleman will be made public throughout the country, because a great number of people feel a deep sense of grievance in this matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The announcement to which I have referred was made on behalf of the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty by the Bishop of Ipswich in the Church Assembly on 1st February, 1932.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL STUD.

Mr. JOEL: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the question of the disposal of the national stud at Tully, county Kildare, is now under consideration by the Government; and, if so, whether any decision has yet been reached?

Sir J. GILMOUR: With a view to securing a reduction in the expenditure of my Department, I reviewed its various activities, including that of the national stud. I have decided for the present to maintain the stud, subject to reconsideration of the position at a later date.

Captain HOPE: Is it not a fact that over a great many years this stud showed a profit every year?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir.

Captain HOPE: Then is there any need to consider its position?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not making a profit now.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MIGRANTS (CANADA AND VICTORIA).

Mr. MABANE: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of British migrants deported from the Dominion of Canada during 1930 and 1931, showing separately the numbers deported because they had become a public charge and the numbers deported because they had committed an offence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The total figures are not available, but as regards assisted migrants, in 1930, 296 were deported because they had committed offences, and 1,402 as public charges. The corresponding figures for 1931 were 267 and 1,531.

Mr. MABANE: In view of the economic consequences, will it be possible to discuss at Ottawa this important question of the deportation of British migrants?

Mr. THOMAS: I am in constant communication about this question, but the ultimate authority must be the Dominion.

Mr. MABANE: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when representations were first made to the Government of Victoria for the appointment of a Royal Commission to investi-
gate the condition of migrants from this country to the Victorian Mallee country; and when the Royal Commission was in fact established?

Mr. THOMAS: My predecessor telegraphed to the then Prime Minister of the Commonwealth on this subject in December, 1929. In July, 1930, the Government of Victoria announced their decision to appoint a Royal Commission. The formal appointment of the Commission was issued on 10th December, 1930, and it commenced its inquiries on the 9th February, 1931.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the importance of this question, and the allegation that the British Government have a responsibility in the matter, will not some means be found of communicating the report of the Commission to this House?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, I hope an opportunity will be given for this House to be informed of the whole situation. I have made it abundantly clear that we accept no responsibility, bet, equally, I have urged that in cases of distress no discrimination should be made between migrants and Australian-born subjects, and I am pleased to say that that is being carried out.

Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand that provision will be made for us to have an opportunity of putting forward our views?

Mr. THOMAS: The arrangements will be made through the usual channels, and that is not a matter for me.

Mr. MABANE: Is not this report long overdue in view of the fact that these migrants have been living on subsistence allowances from the State of Victoria since the end of 1929?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD DIVORCE BILL.

Mr. JANNER: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is prepared to receive a deputation to put proposals before him in the matter of the Trinidad Divorce Bill?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has already received the deputation which has come
from Trinidad to lay its views before him on this question. He is seeing a deputation of Members of this House on the same subject to-day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask at what time it will be, and whether every Member of the House is to be invited?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (BRITISH FORCES).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the composition of the British forces in Palestine; who commands them; and, if there is a mechanised force, what is its exact composition and from what units has it been drawn?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Palestine and Transjordan form one command for defence purposes, and the British forces consist of two Royal Air Force squadrons, one Royal Air Force armoured car company and two British infantry battalions. The Royal Air Force armoured car company consists of a headquarters and four sections of armoured cars. In addition, one company of the Transjordan Frontier Force, a locally recruited force commanded by British officers, is mechanised. The Air Officer Commanding, Palestine and Transjordan, is in operational command of all military forces in the two countries.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Are we to understand that the Air Ministry has itself started independent mechanised forces?

Sir P. SASSOON: The armoured car company in Palestine and Transjordan belong to our Air Force.

Captain HOPE: Is the whole of this force paid out of British funds, or partly out of Palestine funds?

Sir P. SASSOON: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether this is the beginning of a larger Air Force, and are we to have a complete, mechanised force, separate from the Army, under the Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: That question relates largely to matters of policy, which are not easily dealt with by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (ABLE-BODIED RELIEF).

Mr. WEDDERBURN: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the letter sent last week by the Scottish Department of Health to the Greenock Public Assistance Authority, informing them that their action in disregarding War service disability pensions is illegal, and that individual members of the council authorising the expenditure are liable to surcharge; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I have seen the letter referred to, which sets out the legal position in Scotland regarding the granting of relief to the able-bodied unemployed. The purpose of the letter was to put the local authority on their guard against unwittingly committing an illegal act which might have been challenged in the courts.

Mr. WEDDERBURN: If, as the Under-Secretary of State has stated, it is within the discretion of the public assistance authorities to determine in each case the additional need consequent on the disability, will the hon. Gentleman say how it will ever be possible to calculate the amounts surchargeable on any recalcitrant authority?

Mr. SKELTON: The local authority in this case has not dealt with each case individually but has made a ruling on the topic generally.

Mr. WEDDERBURN: Are we to take it that, if the public assistance authority goes through the process of taking pensions into account with each individual case exercising its discretion, it will not be liable to surcharge, but that if it is honest enough to declare its purpose, it will?

Mr. SKELTON: That is a purely hypothetical question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.

Mr. THORNE: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that the employés of the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, have offered to accept a reduction in wages to reduce the cost of making Army
uniforms, in the interests of economy, and in order that the work could be retained at the factory, he will reconsider the decision to close the factory?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir. The fact that some of the employés were willing to accept certain reductions was taken into account when the decision to close the factory was reached.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office how it will be possible for Members of this House to find out for themselves the cost of uniforms made at Pimlico and the cost of uniforms made elsewhere?

Mr. COOPER: If the hon. Gentleman will write to me on the subject, I will send him a statement giving some figures that I think will convince him that this decision has been taken on sound grounds of economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. COCKS: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the organisation of Red Cross hospitals and units in the Shanghai International Settlement?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): No. Sir.

Mr. COCKS: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the number of women and children killed as the result of the operations of the Japanese Army at Shanghai?

Mr. EDEN: No British women or children have been killed. I regret, however, that I have no information about the nationals of other Powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODS, CHINA (RELIEF).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 93.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the fact that the League of Nations last September decided that measures should be taken for the relief of the victims of the floods in China, and that at the request of China a flood relief commissioner was sent to China by the League to organise this relief, whether he
can state how far the work of relief has been checked by the invasion of the Shanghai area by Japanese troops?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDGES (SALARIES).

Mr. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether the course taken under the Economy Act and Order in Council in reference to the Judges has not impaired the independence of the Judges and the position they have occupied in the Constitution since the passing of the Act of Settlement; and whether his attention has been called to the grave doubts which are entertained by eminent jurists as to whether the above Act and Order have legally affected the Judges?

Mr. BALDWIN: The House is aware that doubts have been expressed by eminent jurists as to whether the Economy Act, and the Order in Council made under it, were legally applicable to the Supreme Court Judges. The Judges themselves, while they were all of them ready to share the burdens that have been undertaken by the whole nation at the present time, were gravely concerned lest the constitutional status of their office should have been in any way impaired. I am glad to take this opportunity of repeating the assurance, already conveyed to the Judges, that nothing has been further from the intention of the Government than to derogate in any way from the special position in which His Majesty's Judges stand by virtue of the Act of Settlement, the Act of 1 George III and later Statutes, or to affect, directly or indirectly, the independence, security or prestige of their high office.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the actual reduction has never been under consideration, but merely the legal point of view?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir, there has never been any question of the Government making any change. The whole discussion has been on the constitutional ground. I am glad to assure the House of that fact.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If reductions have not been so far under consideration, may
I ask whether, in view of the almost certain increase in the cost of living, certain reductions have been taken into consideration?

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Prime Minister, seeing that the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) has stated in his question that the reductions have impaired or have given cause to think that they might have impaired the course of justice in the courts—

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The words of my question were "whether the course taken under the Economy Act and Order-in-Council has not impaired."

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but seeing that the question says that the course taken by the Government and the Order-in-Council might have impaired the course of justice, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the question of wages and salaries of judges in any way affects the judicial status of the Bench?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the hon. Gentleman has not quite got the point, which is rather technical and complicated, and is one that, I confess, was quite new to me. It was a question of a legal position which had not been dubitable in the case of any other section of the community, and it raised an important question of principle, which is now settled.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he noticed that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) addressed him as "Prime Minister"? Is the hon. Member anticipating events?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I did not hear it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council to state what the course of business will be next week?

Mr. BALDWIN: Monday: Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account; Committee stage. The India Office Estimate will be considered.

Tuesday and Wednesday: Wheat Bill, Second Reading.

Thursday: Civil and Revenue Departments, Vote on Account; Report stage.
The subject of discussion will be Unemployment Relief Schemes and Export Credits.

Friday: Second Reading of the Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill, and of the Veterinary Surgeons (Irish Free State Agreement) Bill (Lords); and other Orders on the Paper.

If time permits, on any day, other Orders will be taken.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1932.

Copy presented,—of Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Air relative to the Air Estimates, 1932 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Maidstone Extension) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sittingbourne and Milton) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision for the protection of the grey seal." [Grey Seals Protection. Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES BILL.

As amended, considered.

[ALLOTTED DAY.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Declaration as to operation, of s. 8, of 16 and 17 Geo. V., c. 22.)

For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that Section eight of the Finance Act, 1926 (which exempts from duties of customs, with certain exceptions, goods proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been manufactured or produced more than one hundred years before the date of importation) applies in relation to duties of customs chargeable under this Act.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The importation of works of art over 100 years old has been free of duty since the Finance Act of 1926, and it was originally supposed that that exemption would apply to such articles which would otherwise be dutiable under the Import Duties Bill. Our attention has, however, been called to the fact that some doubt exists upon that point, and it is in order to remove any possible doubt that I move this Clause.

Colonel GRETTON: I desire to thank my right hon. Friend for putting this Clause into the Bill. It does not in any way affect any industry in this country. London has become the centre for the distribution of works of art, and an important business is done here in that way. Perhaps I may add that the Government, in inserting this Clause, are following the precedent of other countries, including the United States, which refrain from taxing works of art.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: While I appreciate the concession which my right hon. Friend is making in this Clause, I should like to ask him to consider the possibility of extending this concession to more modern works. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] London has become a great centre for the distribution of modern paintings and sculpture. I noticed from the Order Paper yester-
day that it was proposed to extend this concession to all works of art, but that is rather a vague term; it is often very difficult to define what a work of art consists of. I certainly think, however, that modern pictures and sculpture should be admitted to this country free of duty, for two reasons. In the first place, I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would succeed in getting any revenue whatever from this tax; and, secondly, I believe that the admission of modern works of art from other countries is of very considerable educative value when they are shown in picture galleries throughout the country.
With reference to the observations of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), I think that the United States have gone further than is here proposed, and that at the present moment they remit taxation on works of are altogether. In the case of France, I think that works of art—pictures and sculpture—are taxed at the rate of 2 per cent. if they are sent to a dealer. The result of our taxing modern pictures and modern sculpture would be to destroy London as the art centre of the world. In recent years there has been a tendency for pictures and sculpture to come here and to be distributed from London to other parts of the country.
I should like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the extraordinary burden that the taxation of such articles would put upon those who have to deal with them. It is most difficult for them to decide whether, say, a Degas is genuine or whether it is faked, and the same is true of other pictures and sculptures. Then there is the difficulty which dealers will have in getting a drawback on pictures which they may export in future years. Well known pictures remain in dealers' shops in this country for, perhaps, two or three years, and it will be necessary for the representatives of the taxation Department constantly to supervise these works of art on the premises of dealers in London and elsewhere, so that a very heavy burden will be put upon them. The question of drawbacks on re-export will be a very difficult one to deal with.
I am aware that my right hon. Friend may have some difficulty in dealing with
it in the present Bill, but I hope he will, between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill, give it urgent consideration, in which case I think he will come to the conclusion that, while, as I believe, he will be gaining no revenue whatever, he will be doing a serious injury to a growing industry in this country, and will be destroying the chances of our obtaining the educative advantages which would follow from the introduction of such works into this country, and which I maintain are of considerable value to the country. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot extend this exemption to other works of art. As has been pointed out by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay), it is very difficult to define a work of art. It is very hard to draw the line between a work of art in the artistic sense and a work of applied art, As a matter of fact, however, in the American Customs Tariff there is a section which, while it is not very easy or very delicately phrased, does seem to make the distinction tolerably clear. I am sure that my Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) would reinforce my view with greater knowledge than I possess.
I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend if he could not extend the exemption to manuscripts of literary or historic as well as of artistic value. A number of these are in existence. Some of them may be brought into this country to be kept here, and others because here again, this country is a great centre or market for such objects. One came to my knowledge only the other day. It is supposed to be a 2nd century manuscript of the Bible, two centuries older than the oldest at present known. It has been acquired by an English citizen, and, obviously, it is the kind of manuscript the entry of which into this country one would not desire to prevent or discourage. An extension of the exemption in the two directions I have indicated would not involve the revenue, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could, therefore, see his way to make them, I am sure he would be doing a service both to art and to literature.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer another question. Many artistic productions by British artists have been taken in recent years to France or the United States, and I would ask whether, if such articles are returned to their country of origin, they would be allowed to come back without paying this duty?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I want to say a word in support of the appeal of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) that modern works also should be exempted from this tax. There are two points of view I want to put. The first is that of a British artist going abroad because the climate in England is not very congenial to painting during the winter. Are the works he paints abroad and brings back to this country automatically exempted, or are they taxed as works of foreign art? The other point is, that if you tax and discourage works of art from coming into this country and into the galleries, you are taxing the future artistic education of painters who may be born a long time from now. I submit that that would be a very regrettable thing to do. At the moment there is only one country that taxes works of art, and that is France, where the duty is only 2 per cent. as between dealers.

Mr. COCKS: I fail to understand why this Clause has been brought in, because we understood that one of the objects of this Bill was to preserve the balance of trade and thereby keep up sterling. Why, then, should we allow these very costly objects of art to come into this country free of tax? Surely it is opposed to the view of the President of the Board of Trade that people should be discouraged at the present time from sending money out of the country in order to bring in very expensive statues and pictures? They are a form of luxury—a desirable one, no doubt—but this country cannot afford luxuries at the present time. If people can afford to buy these expensive pictures and statues, they can afford to pay the 10 per cent. duty. I cannot understand why this exemption should be made.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give consideration to the observations of
my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay)? Really, he will stultify his object if he does not extend the exemption. I entirely disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). Has he given this subject a single thought? Is he interested in works of art? Has he considered that there are a number of famous French painters who lived about 100 years ago? My hon. and gallant Friend should really examine this most critically. He will then realise that in the case of some famous French painter who lived about 100 years ago, some of his pictures will be taxed and some will not. It will be a very nice question to decide—the exact year and exact month in which some celebrated French painter did his masterpiece about 100 years ago. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to involve himself in difficulties of that kind? Surely he cannot do so. The whole point about the scheme, I understand, is that it is to be a scientific tariff, an intelligent tariff, not a, rule-of-thumb. That is the whole justification for this particular scheme. How can you tax works of art? Everybody who has any knowledge of dealing in works of art knows that the middlemen, the dealers, will be able, by arranging prices, to escape any kind of liability under this tariff. The only thing that the right hon. Gentleman will do will be to discourage very proper dealing in works of art in this country, get involved in every kind of technical difficulty, and convince the whole world of what the world has long suspected—that we are a nation of Philistines.

Lord BALNIEL: The Minister has pointed to the difficulty of defining works of art. I think that if this principle of exempting modern works of art were agreed to, the difficulty could be overcome by the wording of Paragraph 1807, of the United States Customs Tariff, 1930, which defined the matter fairly simply, and, as far as I can see, in a watertight way. I rise to express the hope that the Treasury will see their way to extend to more modern works of art the concession which has been made to older works of art. I see no reason at all why there should be any differentiation between the two trades,
and why those who deal in old works of art should be put at an advantage compared with those who deal in new works of art. We have long held in London a supremacy as far as older works of art are concerned. Until five or six years ago Paris held that position as regards modern works of art. During the last few years we have been gradually regaining the position Paris held recently. If you add to the price of these articles in London, the centre of gravity will once more shift back to Paris, and we shall lose a very valuable trade. It is a valuable trade to the Treasury from the point of view of revenue, and valuable to trades like the insurance trade, the packing trade, the frame-makers' trade, and so on. Any number of trades, I believe, will be injured if this duty is put on, and if by the imposition of this duty the trade is moved from this country to Paris.
The hon. Member opposite said, "Why should not a man who imports into this country an expensive picture pay a tax? He does not realise the essential part of the trade. It is not even an import trade. It is a re-export trade, an entrepot trade. Only some £100,000 of such imports last year were retained in this country; 90 per cent. of our imports in this particular trade were re-exported. The result is that the margin which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to tax is negligible, or extremely small, and the machine which he will have to create to tax this small margin of profit is going to be extremely cumbersome, difficult and expensive. I believe he will lose revenue by it. I am right, I suppose, in understanding that the re-export trade will be covered by some system of drawbacks, in which case there is very little left to tax. Mention has been made of some of the difficulties. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to control what is being retained and what is being re-exported? Is he going from time to time to examine the stocks of dealers and of artists If he does not do that, 'he cannot have control. I see no possible system except that which is most formidable and complex, and that is to keep control of export and re-export trade.
Most of the other important points have been mentioned already, but let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the position of other countries before we launch into this experiment here. It has
been tried elsewhere, as has been said, and the tax has been reduced to nothing in the United States, and as between dealers in France to 2 per cent., for the simple reason that it has been found that the tax is not worth collecting, and does injury to trade. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree to make this concession now, I hope that he or someone will do so in a year's time; but in a year's time I fear that he will have done, perhaps, irreparable injury to this trade. He will have lost revenue, created unemployment, and made the balance of trade, which is in this instance overwhelmingly in our favour, overwhelmingly against us. Those, I take it, are the three objects of the Bill. In this case, unless the right hon. Gentleman makes this concession, he will have done exactly the contrary of what his intention is in this Bill, and very much hope that, before it is too late, he w ill make this concession along the lines I have suggested.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: I would remind the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who said that these very expensive articles should be taxed, that on the Order Paper yesterday there was an Amendment in the name of two of his hon. Friends the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins), along the same lines as that which we are supporting to-day. Also a number of my hon. Friends and myself had an Amendment on the Paper on the same lines precisely. Of course, we were the victims of the Guillotine. We do not complain, but that was the situation in which we found ourselves. It is not a question of making any discrimination in favour of the rich classes, because not only are rich individuals concerned with the importation of foreign works of art, but public museums and public galleries also, and, in our submission, anything that tends to enrich or diversify our national life ought not to have any obstacle or hindrance placed in its way. The principle of Free Trade in thought has been accepted by the Treasury in this connection, because already there are included on the Free List newspapers, periodicals, printed books and printed music. Surely if those are included, it is simple logic to include also original paintings, original drawings, original sculpture, engravings and so on.
There can be no conceivable question of protecting British artists, because the very soul of art, as of poetry, is originality, and no British artist needs any barrier behind which to lurk to produce his works of art. Surely it would be ridiculous to suggest that John Nash or Paul Nash require a tariff harrier. The same is true of sculpture, and I imagine that Epstein would regard as ridiculous the suggestion that he needs any protection against Rodin. Finally I would suggest that it is ordinary intelligence that we should allow these works of art in free. I admit it is difficult to define precisely what are "works of art," but hon. Members will remember that when the War lunacy reached its zenith, certain intelligent persons in this country said that we ought to exclude German music from all our concerts. I suggest that such a course would be aesthetic nationalism run mad. We do not want in this year 1932 to copy the state of mind of those days.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The House, very naturally, is interested in the many sides of this problem which have been briefly touched upon this afternoon, but they will recognise that it is not so simple a matter as appears on the surface. I noticed that when my Noble Friend mentioned that the Americans had dealt with it in a simple way under the Customs tariff to which he referred, he did not read the provision to which he referred because it was so long.

Lord BALNIEL: I did not wish to weary the House by reading a long technical thing. It would take me five minutes to read.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It shows that this is not such a simple matter as appears on the surface. If it takes five minutes to read out that section, the Noble Lord cannot complain if we take some time to deal with an equally complex matter here. Let it be clearly understood that the Government have no antagonism whatever towards sculptors, potters, or art auctioneers, but, after all, when you are dealing with the taxation of almost every commodity under the sun, it is only natural that the proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should find its place on the Order Paper. But, as I said, there are many aspects of this sub-
ject that might be discussed at great length if we had not other business to transact. The Chancellor will reconsider the situation brought before him; and he will certainly take into account any representation. Let us, therefore, now proceed.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I rise on account of the unseemly attack on me by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks). After the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel), this is clearly a subject for the advisory committee, but, at the same time, we should be very careful in realising that works of art under this description may include a very large number of articles and a large trade coming to the country. No one wants to injure the side of the question that has been referred to, although some of us believe you could have protection from Epstein. At the same time, it seems clearly a question for the advisory committee to consider. There are so many reactions, which I could go into for several hours, apart from the fact, which is in the knowledge of everyone, that you have a very large number of your own artists who have not a meat this evening—a fact that ought to be considered. Modern art comes into competition with it. It is clearly a question for the advisory committee, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to put the thoughts of the House before them.

Mr. PRICE: We on this side of the House fully realise that the importation of all forms of art, such as paintings, sculpture, monuments, etc., have a great educational value; but we say seriously that there is no more harm in taxing dummies than in taxing tummies, and, seeing that the National Government has already put a tax or, food, we do not see why they should hesitate here.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to re-organisation of a trade or industry.)

(1) Where it appears to the Board of Trade that any trade or industry to which Section nine of this Act applies requires re-organisation in the national interest or is
not conducted with efficiency and economy, it shall be the duty of the Board, after consultation with the interests concerned, to make such recommendations as they may deem proper to ensure the re-organisation of that trade or industry, and, in the event of such recommendations not being carried out within a reasonable time, the Board may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, by order direct that, from such date or dates as may be specified in the order, any or all of the duties imposed by this Act shall cease to be chargeable in respect of any goods of a similar class or description to those in the manufacture of which the trade or industry concerned is engaged.

(2) Any recommendations which may be made by the Board of Trade under this Section shall he presented to Parliament.—[Mr. Attlee.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope to be able to recommend this Clause to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a quotation from a source to which, I think, lie will give his very careful attention. We desire to make the best of a bad business. If you are going to have a tariff, we say you must try to use it in order to improve the organisation of industry. I am fortified in that view by a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) to the West Birmingham Division Unionist Association last night in which he drew attention to the dangers that this Clause is designed to meet. He said:
Trades and traders who wanted protection and obtained it must justify that protection by the excellence of the work they produced, by the prices at which they sold and by the ability and energy with which they carried on their business. A tariff was not intended as a feather bed on which the lazy or unenterprising man could rest in peace. It was to be a tonic and a stimulant and, unless the traders of the country used it in that spirit, the protection would be withdrawn and they would go back to their former condition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is providing the feather bed. We want to take his brother's advice and add the tonic and the stimulant. I do not think there is any need, after that speech, for me to labour the point that there is a danger of trades and traders going to sleep behind a tariff wall. I am aware that in certain quarters, if anyone suggests that there is anything at all wrong with British industry, he is told he must not cry stinking fish but must back up his
own country and say British organisation of trade is second to none. I will not give my own opinion here on the subject of British industry, but I will quote one or two authorities who will probably be respected. Here is one quotation:
I can find no basic British industry, even including railways, which will not rapidly respond to reorganisation.
That is Lord Weir. He considers that some of our basic industries need modernising. The late Lord Melchett, a great captain of industry, said:
Unless the steel industry is prepared to re-establish itself on a modern basis and disregard the personal ambitions or traditions of the past, unless it is prepared to reorganise itself on modern lines it neither deserves nor can it expect to receive Safeguarding.
That is on the side of production. Let us look again to the side of marketing.
We shall be able to bring many of our somewhat obsolete manufacturing plants up-to-date with modern equipment. Some fault there is undoubtedly in our salesmanship.
That is a quotation from the heir to the Throne. As a matter of fact, everyone who has studied the subject knows that, as the report on British industry has pointed out, there are very great faults, and there is much leeway to be made up in production, and especially in marketing our goods. Under this Bill we are giving special advantages to industry. The iron and steel industry has said quite frankly that it has a reorganisation plan which it is prepared to put into force, but there are many industries which are not in that position. There is, for instance, the cotton trade. I do not think it will benefit by the Bill at all, but I give it as an instance, because we have the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) and others who have borne witness to the disorganisation in that industry, There is need for reorganisation, but you have taken no power to bring it about in the Bill. That is one of our chief complaints against it, that you are leaving unused a powerful instrument which you might use for the reconstruction of British industry. The point perhaps cannot be put in better language than that used by the report on the Iron and Steel Industry. It says:
If however, the State is to afford protection for private enterprise in the conduct of its business, the State must he satisfied, in the first instance, that those who seek that protection are without question
carrying out their obligation in the course they adopt and paying due regard to the effects of the policy upon the national interest.
All we say is that, where the State has taken powers and said, "We are going to protect you from foreign competition; we are going to put you in a privileged position," the State has every right to see that this side of the contract is carried out. In our view, one of the functions of the Board of Trade is not merely to be dealing with small details, but to be taking a wide and statesmanlike view over the whole of our trade and industry, and it should have the power to try to bring some sort of organisation and plan into our national life. Our proposal is simply that where the Board of Trade, with its sources of information, finds that reorganisation is not taking place, it should have power to go to firms and say, "Set your house in order," and, if they refuse, the tariff may be taken off until they do set their house in order. I think that is a perfectly fair proposition from the point of view of the State, and it will powerfully assist the more up-to-date firms in every industry. In all industries there are firms that are up-to-date and there are others that are not, and reorganisation has been held up time and again because of stupid people who will not take the line of the enlightened managers in their industry.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out the advantage of having a weapon though it may not be necessary to use it. We want to give him an instrument with which he can bring reconstruction into industry. We hope it will not be often used, but the fact that it is there will be a powerful argument with those who are trying to reorganise industry to see that they are not stopped by selfish interests. The best possible justification that can be put forward for a tariff is that it is a kind of temporary shield behind which industry is going to be reconstructed. If it is only going to be a shield for laziness it is clear that you are only out to serve private interests and you are not acting in the national interest at all.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I want to support the Clause and I am going to reiterate some of the remarks that have been made on previous occasions. We have appealed, I believe, to the President of the
Board of Trade and we have also selected a deputation in order to place the policy of our federation before him. I now come to the question of the Committee appointed by the Labour Government under the Chairmanship of Lord Sankey and the recommendations that they made for the reconstruction of industry.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: On a point of Order. I do not know whether I am quite correct, but I understood that the report of the Sankey Committee was supposed to be a confidential document to the Cabinet and, although some information in connection with it has leaked out in public, some of us have not made use of the information that we have. Is it considered the right thing to refer to it in the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: The well-known rule applies that when an hon. Member quotes from a report or document he must lay it on the Table. If he cannot do it he must not quote.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am sorry the hon. Member interrupted, because he knows that the policy of the federation has been established on the report of the Sankey Commission, which appeared not in this country but in the foreign Press. We have put question after question down not only on behalf of the Labour party but on behalf of those who are really in favour of Tariff Reform. The Prime Minister himself has admitted that this report, so far as Lord Sankey and the Committee are concerned, was supposed to be a private report, but, because a leakage has taken place on the Continent, its contents have now become common property. We know it from A to Z. I have mentioned the question of the Sankey Report, and, as the Report is not on the Table, I will leave the question there. I come back to the proposals of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. Those proposals have not only been submitted to the Labour party, but to the economy committees of the Liberal party and of the Conservative party, and they have also been placed, as late as a week last Friday, before the President of the Board of Trade. The difference between the
Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) and myself is, that we lay down as a Confederation that the Government ought to see to it that the re-organisation of the industry takes place before any tariffs are imposed at all. The steel manufacturers come forward and say to the Government, "We must have a tariff first and re-construction afterwards." What is happening?
The "Western Mail," which is the South Wales local paper, says—and I hope the hon. Member for West Swansea will note this—that the pool is to be revived in the tinplate trade. The employers had a meeting in the Exchange at Swansea on Tuesday last. Let us see what this means. Their proposal is to establish a pool. I hope I shall have the attention of the President of the Board of Trade or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because this is a very important matter. The employers in the tinplate trade are now going to revive the pool which was in existence six months or 12 months ago. I have no objection to the pool because they are now going to rope in the 10 per cent. of independent employers who used to buy foreign steel bars and keep down the prices of the home-produced bar. I am in agreement with the pool being revived so that the 10 per cent, of independent employers who used to buy foreign bars should be roped in. I do not quarrel with them there. I want to point out to the President of the Board of Trade that these employers say that, if they work 75 per cent. of their plant, they cannot cover the cost of production. They say: "Under our pool we only want to work 50 per cent. of the plant. We will increase the price of plates to 14s. 6d. a box. It will be better for us as tinplate manufacturers to work 50 per cent. of the plant in the trade and make a profit rather than to work 75 per cent. of the plant and make a loss." From an economic standpoint, I even agree with the employers in that respect. It is a sound proposition to work so as to cover the cost of production and make a profit rather than to work at a loss.
How are they going to do it? The steel employers, it should be remembered, are the tinplate employers as well, because the steel works own practically the whole of the tinplate works in South Wales. The steel employers are to make
an arrangement with the tinplate employers in so far as the price of steel bars is concerned. But we are up against these facts. We must have a reorganisation of the industry. There are about 16 firms in South Wales producing tinplate bars, whereas eight steel works can produce all the steel. Our proposal in the confederation scheme is to have an import and export board so as to be able to buy the raw material and to say how many works should be kept going in order to produce the commodity required in the tinplate trade. Therefore, we appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to take this matter into consideration as far as South Wales is concerned. Whatever the hon. Member for West Swansea may say, I say—and I have been in the trade for 30 years—that we have inefficient plant in South Wales. We have exactly the same furnaces and the same bar mills to-day in South Wales—

Mr. L. JONES: And trade union leaders.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Wait until I have finished. We have exactly the same furnaces and the same bar mills. I am not saying that the capacity of the furnaces has not been increased, but we have not any of the great modern furnaces. We have furnaces and mills in some of the works in South Wales, the rates in regard to which I fixed up 30 years ago. I can tell the House and the country that in some of these steel works during the last 30 years they have paid from 80 to 100 per cent. profit, and they have not put any money to reserve in order to keep their plant sufficiently in order to meet not only competition in this country, but foreign competition as well. I challenge anybody to deny those facts. We appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to go carefully into the matter, because we believe that, if the people in South Wales and in other parts of the country do not reorganise the industry, they should be taken off their feather bed, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. (Sir A. Chamberlain). They should be compelled to bring their plant up-to-date, so that if we get a revival of trade they will be able to meet competition, not only in this country, but from foreign countries. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that, he will not only do good to the employers themselves but to the workmen and the community at large.

Mr. L. JONES: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate this afternoon. Having read the Clause proposed so ably by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, I felt that the proposal was of a much wider application than merely affecting the South Wales area. Even now, I am very doubtful whether it is right to waste the time of the House and deal with the romances of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths). From many points of view, it is a pity to take up the time of the House with so little time being allowed for the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Why not do it? I want the answers on record, so do not be afraid to reply.

Mr. JONES: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypool will give me credit, at any rate, for not following along the path which he has gone.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: You are afraid.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman has on every possible occasion throughout the discussion of the Bill dealt with the South Wales steel position. I have on one or two occasions, not attempting to reply to the hon. Member, told the House of the state of trade as far as South Wales is concerned. Let me repeat the facts. We have the finest labour organisation of any steel industry in the whole world. We have a higher wage cost per ton than is paid by any steel-producing industry in the whole world. We have a shorter working week for our workmen than is given to any class of steel workers in any part of the world. We have been able to make steel at prices more advantageous to consuming industries than has been possible in any other steel-producing district. I am aware of the fact that the hon. Member for Pontypool has been in the trade for 30 years. We have bookkeepers in our industry who have been with us 60 years, but that does not make them chartered accountants.
The hon. Member for Pontypool has, it is true, until a few years ago, been responsible to a certain extent for the Labour policy adopted in the South Wales steel trade, but it is rather pathetic that he should come to the House of Commons and make statements, both to-day and last week, which are so removed from the truth. Only a few days ago he told the House that the industry
in South Wales was so inefficient that he knew of four sons of a manager being placed in various positions. When I challenged the hon. Member outside the Debating Chamber, he said: "Oh, well, the Chamber is only a Debating Chamber." There is not an instance in the whole of the industry which would justify the hon. Member making statements of that kind on the Floor of the House of Commons, especially when such statements go into the records of the discussions of the House.
There is a great deal in the proposals of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) with which I am in total agreement. There is no doubt that industries which are given the advantage of Safeguarding Duties should do everything possible to set their House in order. I am particularly anxious that industries throughout the country should, under the umbrella, take every possible step to reorganise. But it is amazing that every time these matters are discussed in the House of Commons, we hear charges against the efficiency of British industry. On a number of occasions when Amendments have been put forward by Opposition Members, and, unfortunately, by Members on this bench with whom I have not agreed on many occasions, hon. Members have made use of those Amendments to attack the efficiency of British industry. It is time that this sort of thing was stopped, especially in the House of Commons.

Mr. ATTLEE rose—

Mr. JONES: I am not suggesting it about the hon. Member. Attacks of that kind upon British industry are flashed across the wires to all parts of the world, and it is particularly unfair that statements made in the House of Commons which are grossly untrue should be continuously exaggerated and emphasised by Members of the Opposition. It is unfair to South Wales, and as far as efficiency is concerned, we are proud of our record as compared with that of any steel-producing district in the world.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: It is untrue.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member knows as well as I that you may have in any district some works that are more efficient than others. You may have a greater and a lesser degree of efficiency.
I should be the last man to suggest that you can have uniform efficiency in industry, but I do say that we have in South Wales some of the most efficient works in the whole country, and that it is because of that efficiency, well managed and well run, that we have been able to give to the men within the trade union of the hon. Member the highest wages paid in the whole country.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not want to see this Amendment embodied in the Bill. But we must not lose sight of the desirability of achieving the highest industrial efficiency, which our leading industrialists themselves desire. There is a fear amongst some hon. Members on this side of the House and also amongst hon. Members on the benches below that the urgent necessity for the national planning and development of industry along modern lines in this country has been to some extent unrecognised or, shall I say, insufficiently emphasised, in connection with this Bill; and also the equally urgent necessity of Imperial development and the Imperial consolidation and coordination of industry. I do not say that these are questions which can properly be handled by this House. This House cannot handle technical industrial questions of reorganisation and so forth. If it lay in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade to put into operation the tariff proposals, I do not think there would be any cause for anxiety on the part of any hon. Member. But the point I want to make is that this Bill hands over a tremendously powerful instrument to the Tariff Advisory Committee. The whole resources of the State are being put at the disposal of that Committee, and I would submit, with due deference, that, sooner or later, those resources will have to be concentrated upon certain more or less clearly defined objectives, of which I should like to suggest three, (1) the maximum efficiency of industry, in the interests of the country as a whole; (2) the regional planning and development of industry, also in the best interests of the country as a whole; and (3) Imperial co-ordination of industry, or what is sometimes called Imperial rationalisation.
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), speaking with all the authority of his great experience as an industrial leader, accused me the other
day of having had no experience of industry and of having cast doubts upon the efficiency of British industry. I never cast any doubts upon the efficiency of British industry as a whole. I believe that, in the circumstances of the present time, British industry is at least as efficient and probably more efficient than the industry of any other country, and that if we use our opportunities properly in the years that lie ahead, owing to our position at the present moment, and particularly owing to the fact that we have left the Gold Standard, we have a chance of resumnig once more the leadership of the world, not only in industry, but in finance. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that nothing in the world is as efficient as it could be. No British industry is as efficient as it could be. Even the hon. Member is not as efficient as he could be. If he thinks that he is, he will not have that glowing political future which otherwise I predict for him.
There have been from time to time observations by Lord Weir, Sir Harry McGowan, and other great industrial leaders in this country, that there is still a great deal to do before we can say that British industry is as efficient as it could be to meet the requirements of a modern era; a new era which is very different from the era before the War. There has also been a report by Sir Francis Goodenough on British salesmanship, which suggested that there was a good deal left to be desired in that direction. The President of the Board of Trade well knows that in some industries certain developments which are desired by the leaders, the most responsible people in the industry, are being held up by small and recalcitrant companies in those particular industries. What we desire to see is the maximum amount of co-operation between the Government, the banks, and the industries themselves in order to secure the maximum efficiency of industry, in the interests of the country as a whole. There are some things that the Government, the banks and industries acting together can do, which no industry acting singly can possibly do. In this Bill the Government are placing at the disposal of the Tariff Advisory Committee a great and powerful instrument, which can and ought to be used for very useful purposes, in order to assist British industry to become the most efficient industry in the world.
I was a little disappointed by the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade the other night when a similar Amendment was being discussed. It seemed to me that he implied that this was the very last word, that this was the end of the Protection policy, that there was nothing more to be said, and that the necessity for the constructive planning and development of British industry has been completely lost sight of. I am sure that that is not really the case. What the House desires to hear from the Government to-day is that, as we are being asked to hand over this tremendously powerful instrument to the advisory committee and to place the great resources of the State at their disposal, the Government, neither now nor in the future, will not forget the necessity for seeing that at all times, and in all ways, the efficiency of British industry is maintained.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I congratulate the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on the very much better speech that he has made to-day than the one he made last week? I rejoice that some criticisms in which I then indulged have not been unfruitful. Sometimes, however, as I have listened to my hon. Friend I have been inclined to think that the mantle of Oswald has fallen upon Robert.

Mr. BOOTH BY: I hope so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not quite understand the point of view of those who seem to be like little children who have been given a garden plot to look after. When little children start gardening and they plant something, they go to the garden after two or three days and take up the plant to see how the roots are getting on. That seems to me to be entirely characteristic of the mentality of those who are responsible for the Amendment that we are now discussing. Some people think that you have only to say, "rationalisation, co-ordination, reorganisation, co-operation" seven times running and something will happen. Frankly, I am getting a little tired of that sort of talk. We have had too much inquiry into British industry in recent years. The more we inquire, the less prosperous industry seems to be. Judging from the coal-mining industry, you have only to grant an industry two Select
Committees and three Royal Commissions and it will land into the bankruptcy court. This ceaseless urge for interfering in other people's business, this nosey parkerism of modern politics, is not beneficial but harmful to industry. We ought to leave people alone to get on with their own business and give them that greater security—

Mr. BOOTHBY: Then why give them a tariff?

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is always an awful mistake to interject remarks at the wrong moment. Allow me to complete the sentence—and give them that greater security that will enable them to look after their own salvation. Up to now they have never had security. Everyone who has studied the problem of security and insecurity knows that if you give anybody absolute security they become inefficient, and that if you give them no security they become inefficient. You have to give them that degree of security which will enable them to develop themselves properly. It is because I believe that this Bill is laying the foundations of that security and making it possible for industries to reorganise themselves, that I support the Bill, although for certain reasons I wish it went a little further. I do wish we could leave people alone, and let them go quietly on with their business. Give them the conditions under which they can manufacture economically, and then I have not the slightest doubt that our business men will show in the future that efficiency which they have shown in the past.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: I have considerable sympathy with the Clause that has been moved by the hon. Member opposite, and I am very anxious that what he has at the back of his mind should not be lost sight of, but it seems to me that the Amendment he has moved will not be likely to any great extent to assist in what be desires to bring about. It is foolish to close our eyes to the fact that in industry in this country there are defects that can be remedied. One of the greatest difficulties is the fact that when the majority of an industry have been anxious to reorganise, the whole of the reorganisation scheme has been prevented because there has been a minority
unwilling to agree to it. It does not seem to me that this new Clause is likely to help any industry to get over a difficulty of that kind. There is another point which arises in connection with this matter. The action of the present Government and of the late Government has been to attempt to bring about improvements in reorganisation in several industries. It is no secret that the President of the Board of Trade in the days of the late Labour Government devoted a great deal of time to an attempt in one or two notable instances to bring about the reorganisation of industry.
Possibly the hon. Member who moved the adoption of the new Clause has under-estimated the tremendous difficulties of bringing these things about. Not only are there the special difficulties of the trade, but in every case where you try to amalgamate a number of private interests there are personal difficulties, such questions as what is going to happen to the directors, the managers, and the men who have occupied positions, who will no longer be required under the new scheme. I cannot conceive how those difficulties are going to be met, or how it is going to be made easier to bring about amalgamations by passing this Clause. At the same time, I am exceedingly anxious that the President of the Board of Trade should definitely state that it is the intention of the Government to use all their influence and to give all the assistance they can to industries that desire to bring about reorganisation, or in any way to improve themselves. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give an undertaking that the Government are distinctly determined to assist such industries in every possible way.
5.0 p.m.
When I was at the Overseas Trade Department I was very much impressed, as I went about the country, with the views of business men who, perhaps knowing the views of the Government which I represented, were very anxious to have Protection introduced. Whatever our views may be about Protection and whatever may be the views of hon. Members about the Measure now going through the House, there can be no doubt that the vast mass of business men believe that, in some way, this Bill is going to help their industries. I became convinced that money was simply being
held back because the financial interests would nut put their money into industry unless there was some measure of Protection for that industry. Presumably now, for better or for worse, whatever the views of hon. Members may be, advantage is going to be taken of this Measure to give, shall I say, a new impetus to industry. I believe that is the result that we are going to see from passing this Measure. It is most imperative that at the same time there should be forthcoming all the financial assistance that is required and that industry itself in its various sections—I agree that there are minorities which are still moving with laggard steps—should recognise that this Bill alone will never put industry on its feet. Neither by Protection nor Free Trade will you ever solve the great industrial problems of to-day. They are infinitely too great to be solved by those methods. Whatever our views may be as to whether it will be of assistance or otherwise, it is imperative that the Government should give financial assistance, which I believe can be rendered in certain directions, and also give wherever possible full assistance to industry to reorganise itself. Hon. Members opposite sometimes overlook the danger of giving the Government too much power to interfere in industry. You can have private enterprise and some system of public control, but the moment you begin to have neither the one nor the other and combine interference by public authorities in private enterprise, you will find yourself in difficulties. If the Government is to be asked to interfere on certain lines of reorganisation, I suggest that it is not quite so easy as hon. Members imagine.
A short time ago there was a general idea in business circles that large amalgamations were beneficial, but recent experience has shown that some of these amalgamations have been too big. If they had been brought about on the direct initiative of the Government it would have raised questions of considerable difficulty. These are the problems we have to bear in mind when we ask the Government to take action such as this proposal requires. Something of this nature will have to be done, but in quite a different way. The proposal may not commend itself to the President of the Board of Trade as it is, but at the same time the idea that is behind it, that efficiency is essential if
industry is really to go ahead, is important, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure the House that it has the fullest sympathy of the Government.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I should not have intervened but for the remarks made by the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) in replying to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths). If the hon. Member for West Swansea had been in the House as long as some of us he would be well aware that some of the strongest criticisms of the present organisation of industry have come from supporters of the Conservative party, some of whom have become convinced that none of the nostrums advanced by Members of the Front Bench are of the slightest use. They have admitted that one of the things most needed in industry to-day is to clear out some of the senile individuals who are obstructing the development of industry at the present time. I have heard eminent members of the Conservative party declare that one of the drawbacks to British industry is the fact that many directors were 70 and 80 years of age, suffering from senile decay, and that it was time they cleared out.
The hon. Member must also remember that the Prince of Wales has criticised British industry as much as anybody. He never makes a speech but what he impresses the necessity of reorganisation of British industry, and criticises strongly the difficulties under which British industry suffers under its present management. [interruption.] You have made him your commercial traveller. You have sent him all over the world on your commissions. It is not long ago since you asked him to go to the Argentine to talk to the people there and do something to revive our trade. And he almost persuaded the Argentinians to wear boater hats as the salvation of the Luton straw hat trade. The hon. Member for West Swansea has said that in the steel trade of this country the best wages in the world are paid. In the steel trade about 80 per cent. of the labour is unskilled, with an average wage of £2 5s. per week, and the 20 per cent. of skilled labour receives wages varying in amount, I do not know exactly what it is. But if the steel trade of South Wales has made enormous profits, 100 per cent. as mentioned by the hon. Member for
Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths), then it is because the trade has rested largely on the skill of the workers employed and not upon the push of the management.

Mr. L. JONES: I did not trouble to refute the statement of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) as to profits, because I hardly thought anyone in the House would give credence to it. His statement is a gross exaggeration.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I hope now that the hon. Member for Swansea West (Mr. L. Jones) is going to be just with Members of this House and will not be prepared to make misleading and lying statements.

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that expression at once.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: With all respect to you, I will not withdraw to that man. He has been a nuisance ever since he came into this House. [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I call upon the lion. Member to withdraw the statement which he has made.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Out of respect to you, Sir, I do; and I will substitute it by saying that he is a perverter of the truth. [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must withdraw the statement unreservedly.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: No, I shall not for that man. He has ruined the steel trade in South Wales.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw the statement.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: No, I will not withdraw that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member will please withdraw from the House. [Interruption.] I must ask the hon. Member again to withdraw from the House for the remainder of to-day's sitting.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was saying that it would appear as though the South
Wales steel trade rested upon the skill of the workers rather than on the push of the management. I am informed that the wages paid in the steel trade in Monmouthshire are about 5s. per day for unskilled labour, and that in the North of England they are about 35s. per week. If these are high wages in the steel trade, higher than any paid in any part of the world, then all I can say is, God help those who are receiving wages in protected countries. It will not appear as though the workers are going to receive very much by the introduction of this Bill. But behind all these questions there is the eternal question which Thomas Carlyle discussed—the condition of the people—and the Conservative party comes forward with this Bill as part of their plan for altering the conditions under which the masses of the people live. I hope they will succeed, but I do not think they will. This Measure is bound to fail because the problem is not one which can be touched by mere tariffs or Free Trade, or by the reorganisation of industry.
As far as reorganisation is concerned the United States of America has pushed it as far as it can go. They have got as big concerns as can be worked, and eminent psychologists have pointed out that it is possible to make your business so big that you will be unable to find a single man big enough to control it, it will be beyond the control of mere human beings. That is the position in the United States. Concerns are almost equally big in Germany, and are getting as big in France. These countries where rationalisation, so-called, and reorganisation have been pushed to extremes are no better off economically than we in this country with a somewhat looser form of industrial organisation. I am told that some of our organisations have arrangements with selling organisations abroad and that organisations here cannot sell to a third country without the transaction going through the country in which this scheme of arrangement exists.
What is the use of talking about tariffs in those circumstances? The problem cannot be tinkered with by tariffs. It is not a little thing, which a tinker's soldering iron can put right. It is not a leaky kettle; the whole thing is bursting and breaking—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that it is not as had as
that, but I think it is. You may tell me that under this scheme of organisation and tariffs the condition of the mass of people is going to be improved. Experience does not prove that. When this country has been wealthy the manufacturers have been no more generous than they were when the country was poor. I spoke earlier in the Debates on this Bill, and the Lord President of the Council expressed a certain amount of satisfaction with a tribute that I then paid. I am glad that I was able to provide him with a little solace. If the depression could be removed a little from the Government, Front Bench it would perhaps be useful for them, for it has been over them long enough. The right hon. Gentleman has discovered that he had to act the part of a peacemaker, and the part of the peacemaker, like that of the transgressor, is somewhat hard. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman found some satisfaction in what I said.
What was it that I pointed out? It was that under Free Trade this country had become enormously wealthy, but that at the time when it was being demonstrated that we were wealthier than at any period in our history, that we were the wealthiest cone try in the world from the point of view of foreign possessions, Charles Booth was writing his book about the life and labours of the poor, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was telling us that 33 per cent. of our people were on the border-line of poverty and starvation. These revelations were being made when the country was simply rolling in wealth. But the people were left poor. The Government may increase wealth here, but the people will still remain poor and their struggle will go on just the same. All kinds of provisions are in the Bill for an increase of the profit side of industry, but there is little for the worker, and for that reason I have comparatively little interest in these discussions. But we are entitled to point out that neither tariffs nor Free Trade can solve the problem, and as to re-organisation, I think that that will leave us pretty well where we are now.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): The supporters of the new Clause will not claim any originality for the hope they express that the boons conferred by this Bill will not be used
as an excuse for somnolence. The Government has gone very much further than an expression of hope. It has given a positive assurance, and indeed my hon. Friend who moved the new Clause quoted from a speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which was quite clear upon that point. I could quote other passages from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the same effect, and I could certainly quote my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. For the purpose of removing any doubts which may still subsist in the minds of my hon. Friends opposite, about the purpose of this Bill, I claim indulgence while I read what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said on the Financial Resolution relating to the Bill. He was making a reference to a previous speech and referring to another right hon. Gentleman, and his words were these:
He would like to see these additional duties used in such a way as to encourage the reorganisation and rationalisation of industry. So should we; the difference being that we should use the Cabinet and the Advisory Committee while he would use a commission. There is practically no difference between us there. We say that if there is to be anything in the way of reorganisation and rationalisation you should give these industries a chance of doing it with a little shelter while the change is going on.
My right hon. Friend went further than that and said:
We retain the power to check profiteering, because, obviously, if any attempt at profiteering is brought to the notice of the Government, they are not going to allow it to pass; and the simplest way of getting rid of profiteering is to withdraw the duty." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1932; cols. 704 and 705, Vol. 261.]
Those are the assurances that have been given by my right hon. Friend in the course of these Debates. Nor does the Government stop at assurances, for it is clearly laid down in the Bill in two places that the Advisory Committee may recommend a withdrawal of a, duty, or that the Treasury may of its own motion do likewise. Therefore, there are in the Bill ample safeguards to assure that these advantages will not be used to cover slackness or incompetence. So much for what my right hon. Friend said and so much for what is in the Bill.
Now let us contrast what I have said about what has been stated and what is
in the Bill, with what is proposed in the new Clause. I would direct the attention of the House to the actual provisions of the new Clause. The new Clause lays down this proposition: That where the Board of Trade thinks that an industry is inefficient or being run uneconomically, it shall make such recommendations as shall ensure the reorganisation of that industry. The Board of Trade is first of all to say that the organisation of such and such an industry is defective. It has next to say how it is defective; thirdly, it has to say how the defects are to be remedied; and, fourthly, it has to say, "We are now satisfied that the defects have been remedied." That is a very onerous task to place upon the Board of Trade. I do not dissent for one minute from the assertion made by my hon. Friend opposite that the function of the Board of Trade is to give every possible and every appropriate assistance to industry. That we do. The difference between my hon. Friend and ourselves is this: He evidently thinks it is the function of the Board of Trade to run industry, and we think it is the function of the Board of Trade and the Government to create the conditions in which industry can be run. My hon. Friend displays a touching faith in machinery. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who made such a powerful speech upon this subject and who is known to be so interested in it, seems to hold the view that if there is a scheme things will be all right. But success in this world does not depend upon machinery, but upon the men who run the machinery.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: You must have the machinery though.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend has suggested that we have in the Board of Trade a number of supermen who know more about the details of an industry than those actually engaged in it. I do not think that any Government Department will ever be in the position to do other people's work for them. The moment people cease to be able to run their own affairs the country will be in as disastrous a plight as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wall-head) suggested. He believes in the inevitability of calamity. In order that we could carry out those functions we
would have to make precise criticisms about the lay-out of factories, about overhead costs and about marketing arrangements, and I suggest that if those whose responsibility it is, on the spot and in touch with the actual factories, are unable to do these things, no Government Department can do them for them. I go further and say that there is a very dangerous implication in this new Clause, an implication which my hon. Friend who moved it did not seem to realise. If you say to an industry "Organise in such and such a way if you wish this tariff to be continued," you give by inference a promise to the industry that the tariff will be continued if the industry carries out what you propose. We have powers in the Bill to take a tariff off. But suppose that on the strength of a scheme finance is raised for the industry, we should be in the position of having given a pledge to the industry to continue the tariff as long as that money was invested in the industry.
That is the clear implication of the new Clause. No, we believe that we have in the Bill adequate safeguards for seeing that industry will be run efficiently. Obviously that is one of the primary matters that the Advisory Committee has to take into account. It is instructed to have regard to the interests of British industry as well as to national interests as a whole and to the interests of consumers. No Advisory Committee worth its salt would ignore the important requirements which my hon. Friend seems to think necessary and with which no one in principle would disagree.
We have had a very interesting Debate and we are very much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) for the protest which he made against those who are constantly crying stinking fish about British industry. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen when I use the term "stinking fish." By that I do not mean to suggest that I can tell the herring fishermen of Aberdeen how to catch herring. The hon. Member evidently thinks the Government can tell them. I thank the hon. Member for West Swansea for the protest that he made against constant jeremiads about British industry. British industry has suffered a great many hardships. Its taxation is high. The conditions which
are imposed upon it with regard to wages and other matters are quite rigid. It is robbed to a large extent of its competitive power. We believe that we shall give it the conditions in which it can work out its own salvation, and, if it cannot, it is goodbye to the future prosperity of this country.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I really must protest against the Parliamentary Secretary talking of those who say that British industry is not as efficient as it might be as criers of "stinking fish." We remember a speech made by the President of the Board of Trade not so very long ago upon the steel industry. The right hon. Gentleman then went into every detail of the steel industry and pointed out, as is well known to everyone, that although our industry may be efficient with the plant it is running, efficient in the state of organisation it has reached, the state of organisation is far behind that of both Germany and America.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not want my hon. and learned Friend to misinterpret what I said. I said that British industry was as efficient as the conditions would permit.

5.30 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Now we are getting at the facts. The whole point is as to the conditions. The hon. Gentleman who visited all the steel factories 5.30 p.m. in this country must have appreciated the fact that it was the conditions in the factories which did not permit of better organisation—the size of the blast furnaces, the number of units of electric power used per man for the lifting of heavy weights, and all the other matters which come into these criteria. I see that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who knows everything about all things, is laughing. I think that we might justly say of him, as he said of someone else, that perhaps the mantle of Charles is falling upon Herbert. This new Clause seems to us to carry out exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary wants. I put this proposition to him. He says that he and his colleagues on the Front Bench agree that if an industry is not efficiently and economically run, then protection ought to be withdrawn. I take it that he goes with me to that extent. Am I right?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not confuse this place with a court of law.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If I could confuse it with a court of law I should apply to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to make the witness answer. In the absence of contradiction, however, I assume that I am right so far. If the hon. Gentleman does not deny it, I must assume that he agrees with me. That being so, how is he or anybody to fix whether an industry is efficiently and economically run under these protective duties, in order to ascertain whether the duties should be withdrawn or not? That is all we are asking. We only say that we want you to have the machinery to do that which you say you wish to do, and nothing further. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Clause he will see that we ask that the Board of Trade should have power to consult with the interests concerned. He forgot to include that passage in the little precis which he gave to the House a short time ago. Under the new Clause the Board of Trade is to consult with the industry as to the methods of reorganisation which are necessary, and, having arrived, after consultation with the industry, at the methods which are necessary for reorganisation, they are not, as suggested, to compel the carrying out of that organisation, but they are to say: "Unless this is carried out, we cannot allow you to have protection any longer."
How does that proposal in the least militate against the expression of opinion which the hon. Gentleman tells us has been given by all the leaders of the Government? It is exactly what they want, but as the Bill stands there is no power to accomplish it. The hon. Gentleman says that the Advisory Committee can do it, but it has been pointed out over and over again that the advisory committee are not intended to do that sort of thing. Some hon. Members who sit on this side and who are, I think, called the Y.M.C.A. group, were chided because they suggested that such a task should be put upon the committee. Nor have the committee power to undertake such a task. They can only act upon representations made. But this task is desired by the Government. The Treasury cannot do it because they have no machinery, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not going to suggest that the Treasury are the
people to inquire whether industries are efficiently and economically run, and if not, to take these taxes off. Therefore, he is left with his own Department, but there is no power under the Bill for his own Department to do it.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Sir S. CRIPPS: There is really no power under the Bill. If the hon. Member says there is, perhaps he will kindly point it out.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Clause 2, page 3, line 25, "any representations." Clause 3, page 5, line 40, "discontinued." If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the rest he will understand.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member is confusing himself. Neither of these passages deals with the Board of Trade.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I was pointing out that the Board of Trade had no power under the Bill, and neither of these passages gives power to the Board of Trade. One gives it to the committee and the other to the Treasury on the recommendation of the committee. If this is really a genuine desire of the Government; if they are not merely saying this in order to make tariffs more palatable for the consumer, but if it is their intention to use the tariff, as has been said, for the purpose of bringing about improved efficiency and economy in industry, then surely they cannot refuse to arm themselves with the one instrument which makes that possible. They have said that they are taking the instrument of possible discrimination against tariff countries though they hope that they will not have to use it. Why do they not take this instrument, which will be the earnest of their desire to do something towards the reorganisation of industry and towards keeping it from that feather bed upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) seems to think it is going to couch itself.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the Board of Trade could not take action with regard to any particular industry which they might like to take, but, as a matter of fact, Clause 2 permits
the Board of Trade, like anybody else, to make representations to the Advisory Committee to make any survey which they desire to make. I agree with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the new Clause is unnecessary. We have had commissions and committees with regard to industry in the past, and it is not necessary to waste any further time in that way. What we do require is that the Advisory Committee should have full power to make a complete survey of the industries of the country, and the only criticism which I have to make in regard to the Bill is that the Advisory Committee has not those full powers. Something has been said in this discussion about efficiency. At the present moment we have not only efficient works, but also inefficient works standing idle. The efficient works are just as idle as the inefficient works; and the cause of their idleness is not their efficiency or their inefficiency. They are idle because they are unable to sell what they can produce. In South Wales there is an up-to-date and efficient plant for the production of ship plates. That plant is idle, not because it is inefficient or out-of-date, but because there is no market for ship plates. In my opinion, the Advisory Committee have not the necessary powers to find out what is wrong with that industry.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now going beyond the question which is before the House. We cannot discuss what is in other Clauses of the Bill as to the powers of the Advisory Committee. The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to the proposed new Clause.

Major THOMAS: The new Clause proposes to give the Board of Trade more powers than it has at present. I feel that the new Clause has this merit at any rate that it is a criticism of the powers which have already been given by the Bill. The powers which have been given in Clause 9, to which this new Clause relates, are not wide enough. Although the Committee may be able to decide whether an industry is efficient or not, they have no powers to find out whether an efficient industry is idle merely because it cannot sell what it can produce. I am pointing out that we have idle plant in South Wales which would he entirely outside the purview of the Advisory Committee in that respect, and my argument
is that the powers of the Committee should be extended, so as to cover what hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to suggest with regard to this new Clause. The Advisory Committee should have power to examine not only each and every industry but also the markets of each and every industry.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now getting on to the question of markets, which is quite outside the subject-matter of the proposed new Clause.

Major THOMAS: it is quite useless to make a survey of industry unless you can at the same time make a survey of the markets for which that industry works.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the proposed new Clause, he will see that it is not directed to a survey of markets, but only to provisions as to the reorganisation of particular trades or industries.

Major THOMAS: And my criticism is that the reason why plant is idle is not on account of lack of efficiency in organisation or otherwise, not because the costs of production are so high. My contention is that you may have high efficiency in plant, organisation and everything else, and yet that plant may be idle merely owing to the fact that there is no market for what it produces.

Mr.DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point is not dealt with in the proposed new Clause. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to read the Clause, and he will find the words:
Where it appears to the Board of Trade that any trade or industry to which Section nine of this Act applies requires reorganisation in the national interest, or is not conducted with efficiency and economy, it shall be the duty
and so on. The hon. and gallant Member must confine his remarks to the reorganisation of a trade or industry.

Major THOMAS: As far as reorganisation is concerned, if we are going to spend the next few years in examining, by means of commissions and committees, the condition of our industries, which in present circumstances have not a chance of any kind of reorganisation, we are never going to do any good. I conclude by saying that I oppose the proposed new Clause.

Mr. J. JONES: Everyone has been talking about British industry, and some of us remember the time when the doctrine of competition was the last word in human wisdom. Now we are beginning to believe in reorganisation, which is more or less the elimination of competition. Hon. Members opposite object to the Board of Trade having these powers, but what does Protection mean? Does it not mean that the Government must interfere in industry, that a tax is to be placed on goods coming into the country for the benefit of those engaged in industry, and are you going to ask for gifts from the State without accepting responsibility from the State? If you are going to have your industry protected, the State should get something in return for what it gives. It gives you protection against competition from abroad, and is it not right to expect that part of the benefit so derived shall come back to the State itself? Revenue may be all right, but where do the workers come in? There is nothing in this Bill to guarantee any benefit to the workers. All that we can get is a promise: "Wait till the clouds roll by."
We know what we get, and that is political Dead Sea fruit, after this Bill becomes law. What crime is there in asking, as this Clause asks, that the Board of Trade should have the right to see that the industries of the country are efficiently conducted and that those who take benefits from the State should at least give a quid pro quo? I know who take the "quids," and I have a slight idea myself that we shall get. the "pro quo," and that is all. For a hundred years we have had more or less Free Trade, and now we are simply reversing the system. We have had the experience of other countries, and can anyone say that Protection has been a magnificent success elsewhere? Are the people in those countries so much better off than we have been under our antiquated system? I do not like to hear hon. Members of this House talking about the decline of British industry. I think our capitalists are as good robbers as those of any other country. They have been successful exploiters, not merely at home, but abroad, ever since I can read history. They have got on very well, but now they are up against it. The people who used to be our customers are becom-
ing our competitors, so that we are looking round to see if we can find a sticking plaster for a wooden leg, and we have found Protection. We are putting this Bill through and when everybody has built a fence round every country, and when we are all sitting in our own back yards, we shall be able to say, "Thank God, I am not like the fellow over the road."
Tariffs will not solve the problem, but we have a right when we are giving Protection for the Government to say that if your industries are not properly organised and conducted, they will withdraw this Protection from you. What more appropriate body is there than the Board of Trade? Its very name gives the idea that it ought to know something about it. They used generally to put somebody over the Board of Trade who had had no connection with trade, but on this occasion the President of the Board of Trade does know something about trade, having been engaged in it. In the days gone by they used to have somebody who knew nothing about it, because he would be the easiest person to manage if there was any dispute between the Board and any particular trade. Surely no one will imagine that any of our Government Departments are so revolutionary in their activities that they will hit their friends one in the jaw.
There are Members of this House closely connected with the Government who are directors of no fewer than 14 different industries. How they manage to carry on all their jobs, I do not know; it takes me all my time to work two. Those Members are directors of 14 different companies, and they get salaries for each, but they are clever people, and we are not. They were born with natural ability; we were born with more or less inability, and we are here to prove it. Surely we have a right to say, when you are going to give a boon to certain sections of industry, that there shall be some sort of control over the kind of benefits which they are to receive and over what they are going to give in return. As the Bill stands, there is no guarantee to the public that they will be protected at all. The ordinary member of the working class will have no guarantee that his interests will be pro-
tected, and the only people who will be protected are those engaged in the production, outside of the ordinary workers, and we know what is going to be the end of it. The more you protect certain classes of industry, the more you will give means whereby industry will become more and more amalgamated into trusts, combines and syndicates.
I have heard the word "rationalisation' used here to-day. What is the consequence of rationalisation for the ordinary people? We are finding out to-day that industry has been so organised that two men are doing three men's work, and that we are manufacturing unemployment. We are producing, not less, but more, but we are employing less to produce more. The same thing has happened in protected countries. Competition always ends in monopoly, and monopoly ends in amalgamation, which means that eventually we shall be up against it. We are asking in this Clause that there shall be some protection for the common people, that if we are going to give people, through their control of industry, the right to levy taxes on their fellows, the Government should have something to say as to how their industry should be conducted. I remember the time when some of the hon. Members opposite who are backing this Government used to make fierce denunciations of Protection, but we have never been enthusiastic Free Traders. I do not believe in Free Trade from the orthodox point of view. I believe in freedom for the people, the right of the worker to control his own destiny and that his labour should not be treated as a commodity in the way in which it is treated. We are asking in this Clause that proper provision should be made to protect the public interest against private exploitation.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I cannot congratulate the leaders, as I think they are, of the Opposition on the wording of this new Clause, because in all the Debates that we have had upon this Bill I have not seen a Clause containing such an extraordinary proposal as this. I can understand any Socialist proposal to take over the whole management of industry, and I can understand a proposal that the State should control industry and
could run it better than private individuals, but this goes very much further than that. If you please, we are asked to pass a Clause which will take in the duty of the Board of Trade to make recommendations to ensure the reorganisation of a trade or industry; that is to say, that the Board of Trade are to be capable of teaching every industry in the country which they think is not working in the manner in which it ought to work, how to put its house in order.
I have heard more nonsense talked in the House of Commons on the question of the want of efficiency of British industry than upon almost any other subject. I do not hesitate to say that there is nothing whatever wrong with British industry except the fact that up to date we have never given it a chance of making profits. The moment there is any money available, British industry will put its house in order without any help from the State; and incidentally I think it is worth drawing attention to the fact that the Government with which hon. Members who are putting forward this new Clause were concerned were also very much concerned with the setting up of the Economic Advisory Council, which deliberately went all over the Continent of Europe to examine Continental factories and works and to compare the efficiency, as they saw it, of those works with that of those at home. The report refers to only one industry, but there may be other examples in connection with other British industries. As regards the steel and iron trade, this is what they state:
As regards the efficiency of management, the modernity and equipment of certain units of plant, they (that is, the British industries) were equal and in some cases superior to the iron and steel plants which we have seen on the Continent.

Sir S. CRIPPS: "Certain units of plant," not all the plants.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: They could not manifestly see every plant in both countries. I am not going to let the hon. and learned Gentleman get away with the idea that this refers to certain units as against the whole, because no such words appear. It is quite clear that they could not see all the plants. It refers only to those plants that they saw, both here and abroad, but comparing what they saw abroad with what they saw here,
it is clear that those here were equal and in some cases superior to the plants on the Continent. I mention that one illustration because I happened to have this report beside me when I entered the House. There has been far too much nonsense talked about the inefficiency of British industry. There is not the smallest doubt, in my own mind, that British industry can look after itself perfectly well and that it does not require any instruction from the State as to how to put its house in order. Where there are deficiencies to be made up, where there are plants that are out of date, those in charge know very well what is wanted, and all that they desire from the State is a chance to be able to work their industries free from State interference, but with a fair field in comparison with the competition of other countries.
The crux of the matter lies in another part of the same report, in which they state what the wage rates are in the different countries, from which it appears that in Germany they are only 67 per cent., as compared with this country, in France 50 per cent., in Belgium 47 per cent., and in Czechoslovakia 42 per cent. That is where the unfair competition comes in, and it is those conditions which have made it impossible for industries here to enjoy that prosperity which they ought to have enjoyed under any real chance of fair trade. That does not mean at all that the remedy is to reduce our wages to those levels—far from it—but that you must prevent your market being flooded with cheap materials brought over here and produced as a result of the very low wages referred to in that report. It would be out of order for me to go beyond the actual terms of the new Clause on the Paper, and I can only say that I hope the House will reject the Clause entirely as something which is quite outside the bounds of possibility, and worse even than the most Socialistic proposals ever put before this House.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I do not want to indulge in the profitless method of tu quoque, but I cannot allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, a quondam Free Trader, to get away with his remarks. Nothing has done more harm to the prestige of this country as an industrial unit during the
last few years than the Protectionist propaganda which has made out that we were down and out. That is wholly untrue. Other countries which are Protectionist are in a worse condition than we are, and it is there that the blame ought to be placed for the "stinking fish" cry that has been referred to. I am disappointed with the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment and other Amendments of the same kind that have been brought before the House. We were told that this scheme was to be unlike anything else in the world; that it was to be scientific, progressive and constructive, and a different, more novel and better thing. Every constructive proposal, however, that has been put forward from these benches, Members on which have done their best to assist in that direction perfectly sincerely, has been turned own. We have been told that it will be all right, but no safeguards of any kind to see that these ideas are really put into effect have been accepted, and it will be the same selfish narrow nationalistic scheme that is in operation in every other country in the world.
I have no doubt that the great majority of the industries of this country are as efficient as any in the world, hut I am certain that there are some that are not in a high state of efficiency, and we ought to take steps in connection with this Measure to bring them up to that standard if they are to have the advantage of State interference. We very often hear that manufacturers want no State interference, but they do not really mean that for they want the kind of State interference that they happen to fancy. They want State interference in regard to every article which they sell, but they do not want the kind that they do not happen to fancy. I hope, therefore, that the cry that manufacturers do not want intereference, will not he accepted. It will be generally agreed that the difficulty that faces industry here is that we are an old industrial nation. In the last century we were the first among the great manufacturing nations of the world. We built up a certain technique which enabled us to amass wealth and to do well in every market in the world. That technique and organisation were well fitted to those times, but the world situation has now wholly changed. We are now faced with conditions that make the
rigidity with which we stuck to our old system a great handicap to us. What in the past has been an invaluable individuality in every industry, has now, to some extent, become a drawback, because it is realised that if you are to be successful you cannot leave each man to work alone; you must have co-operation, amalgamation and organisation of industry on a national basis, and on an international basis too.
If we are to attain that effectively, here is a weapon in this new Clause which might make something of the kind possible. We have a valuable chance for organising our businesses on a national basis by entirely new methods and by using the tariff as a weapon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may -say that that can be done under the Bill, but we do not know. How often have we heard Ministers say, "It is all right; we are going to do that." They mean it, and have the best intentions, but when a Measure comes to be carried out by the Department as the years go by, a different state of affairs arises. I urge the Government to make a definite and binding statement as to their intentions in this respect. I hope that I am wrong in the future that I see under this Measure, but it looks to me as if this Debate has exposed in all its nakedness its really reactionary character.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This is my first intervention in the Debates on this Measure. I cannot understand the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) about non-interference by the State. I thought that most intelligent Conservatives had now thrown over the doctrine of laissez faire. You cannot ask for State interference in the regulation of imports and then say that no State interference is to be allowed in any other directions.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it is so in any other country?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am only saying that if there is protection of imports, the natural thing is that the State regulation ought not to end with imports. It was the old-fashioned Liberalism that stood for the doctrine of non-interference by the State, and I thought that most intelligent Conservatives had long thrown it over. Without being unduly critical I want to ask one or two questions on this
new Clause, because I genuinely want to see what is in the minds of hon. Members who support it. It speaks of a trade or industry that "is not conducted with efficiency and economy." What is meant by economy? I mean one thing by it, and other men mean something else. Hon. Members on the other side generally mean economy in wages and social conditions. This Amendment says, in effect, that if the Board of Trade do not think the wages are low enough—[Interruption.] That is the meaning, as I read it. I am surely entitled to ask intelligent questions. What do the mass of the common people mean by economy? I see hon. Members for three mining divisions here. If they spoke in their divisions, what would their people mean by economy. They would mean low wages and money off the parish.

Mr. TINKER: That is not my interpretation of economy.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is not the hon. Member's interpretation, but it is the interpretation of the common people. Unless economy is defined by something else than a bald statement, it might mean the economy that the head of the Board of Trade wanted at any particular moment. If you said "economy" now to hon. Members opposite, it would mean low wages. You are saying in this Amendment that hon. Members opposite should have the power to withdraw the tariff unless an industry economises, and the only way they know of economising is to pay lower wages. I do not doubt that the Movers of the Amendment have other meanings, and that if asked what they meant, they would say that they wanted to eliminate landlord's charges, way-leaves, directors' fees and so on, but that is not stated here. It is left to the President of the Board of Trade to decide—a man whom, only a year ago, we were attacking for his action over landlordism and wayleaves. I do not believe in making almost a fetish of reorganisation.
What does reorganisation mean? I admit that I am a one-sided man, and that I see things only as my constituents see them. I make no attempt to represent any section but a class section. I believe in a class and in that only, and I make no attempt at any other belief. I ask then what reorganisation means to my class. The great industry involved
here is steel. Where I live, and where some of my constituents live, there are some steelworks partly owned by the family of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. They are the Clyde-bridge Steelworks, and never were works more finely organised. Last year the output of steel was a record—a world's record almost. The machinery is beautifully equipped. But what has that meant to my people, week about, month about? No wages! The very reorganisation, the economy, and the getting together has meant that my people are being thrown out mercilessly. The machine has smashed them. It is no use asking for reorganisation unless we can put alongside it either a proper wage to maintain the people, or a proper way of giving them alternative work.
Take the case of shipbuilding. I know a little about that. Take Harland and Wolff's yard, and many another yard. Their organisation is wonderful. There is none of the old-fashioned going down to the boats and putting in a plate. Watch one of the piano punches at work. When I served my time, we used the old laborious punch one at a time; now a punch is used that works like a piano. What is the effect of all this organization? My people have not had work for six years. It is not because the output has gone down; it has gone up. It is because we have never found an alternative basis for industry so to organise itself to keep men in, I know the purpose behind this Clause. It is a laudable one, but apply my criticism to it. I am accused of loose thinking. I reply to those who say so, "how me that you are less loose in your thinking." Worthy as the intentions of this Clause arc, and though I would honestly like to vote for it, I cannot vote for a Clause which could be interpreted as an attack upon the conditions of my folk and which, if it were carried into effect, would only mean misery and poverty for the very poor whom I represent.

Mr. HOROBIN: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) into the rather interesting though wide subject he has introduced, but I cannot help feeling that it is rather a pity that this question of reorganisation, of bringing industry up to the pitch of efficiency, has been raised in this Debate by a Socialist Clause which, I
imagine, nobody on these benches could possibly wish to see passed. It has enabled plausible and anxious people like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to ride off, on some rather unfair answers, from genuine arguments such as those of an hon. Member who has been sitting beside me. In passing, I must say that it seems to me it is high time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade got over his morbid fear of the faggots. Whenever one of his strong Protectionist colleagues is on the Treasury Bench, he gets the fidgets, and if there is more than one he runs out to shelter behind the President of the Board of Trade.
It is a pity that, when we are discussing reorganisation, it should always be in conjunction with the word "efficiency." Those of us who feel some interest in this matter have no intention of suggesting—it would be impertinent for us to do so—that individual firms are inefficient; but that is not the point, for the best English firms are second to none in the world. The point is the extent to which some English industries have appreciated the need for co-operation between individual firms. That is not a matter of Government Departments telling firms how to run their businesses or of Socialistic interference in industry, and still less is it any question of crying "stinking fish." As I cannot shelter myself behind the right hon. Gentleman opposite may I shelter behind an equally eminent industrialist, a very great industrialist, whose recent sudden death many Members of this House will deplore, and that is Sir Arthur Duckham? If anybody had a right to speak for British industry it was he. He was President of the Federation of British Industries this year. All Members will probably remember the scheme for dealing with the coal trade which he put before the Sankey Commission. I do not propose to argue whether it was a good scheme or a bad

one, but it is absurd to accuse everybody who gets up to point out the importance of insuring that this Bill shall aid and not hinder reorganisation of crying stinking fish or making impertinent comments on the condition of British industry.

Great industrialists such as he are agreed that the old days of individualism are to some extent past in many industries; and it is also common ground that in many industries reorganisation is overdue at this moment, not on account of Government interference but simply because it is the case over and over again that every scheme brought forward is turned down by a majority of either selfish or particularly well-placed or particularly short-sighted employers. The point which we have endeavoured to make on this Clause, without in the least wishing to criticise the efficiency of British industry, and still less wishing to incorporate the Clause in the Bill, is that we have a certain fear lest the protection which is being given to all alike, good and bad, efficient and inefficient, active and inactive, hinders the efforts which are being made, and must be made, to bring about these reorganisations. A great many of these schemes are held up because individual firms are clinging on by their eyelids after they ought to have been shaken out, and if this Measure enables them to cling on for another six months or a year instead of coming into a scheme which they ought to join—indeed, which some of us think they ought to be compelled to join—it will do harm. That point seems to be far too serious to be met by the very amusing but quite superficial remarks we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in the answer he gave to previous speeches.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 356.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[6.22 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins. Sir William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
John, William


Batey, Joseph
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bernays, Robert
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cape, Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lawson, John James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Leonard, William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hicks, Ernest George
Lunn, William


Daggar, George
Hirst, George Henry
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Holdsworth, Herbert
McEntee, Valentine L.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Thorne, William James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Tinker, John Joseph



Nathan, Major H. L.
Wallhead, Richard C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Owen, Major Goronwy
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan


Parkinson, John Allen
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Graham.


Price, Gabriel
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Craven-Ellis, William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford).


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hepworth, Joseph


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cross, R. H.
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Edward C, (Montgomery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hornby, Frank


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Apsley, Lord
Dawson, sir Philip
Horobin, Ian M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Denville, Alfred
Howard, Tom Forrest


Atkinson, Cyril
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dickie, John P.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Doran, Edward
Hurd, Percy A.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Drewe, Cedric
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duckworth, George A. V.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Duggan, Hubert John
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Dunglass, Lord
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Eales, John Frederick
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Eastwood, John Francis
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Blaker, sir Reginald
Eden, Robert Anthony
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Blindell, James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ker, J. Campbell


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Kimball, Lawrence


Bossom, A, C.
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Boulton, W. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R..


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Knebworth, Viscount


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Knight, Holford


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Knox, Sir Alfred


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Broadbent, Colonel John
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Law, Sir Alfred


Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fermoy, Lord
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks.,Newb'y)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Levy, Thomas


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, Oswald


Burghley, Lord
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Liddall, Walter S.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Llewellin, Major John J.


Burnett, John George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Giucksteln, Louis Halle
Mabane, William


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Golf, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Carver, Major William H.
Goldie, Noel B.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McEwen, J. H. F.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Graves, Marjorie
McKie, John Hamilton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Major Alan


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Magnay, Thomas


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, Adam


Christie, James Archibald
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Clarry, Reginald George
Hales, Harold K.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Colville, Major David John
Hanbury, Cecil
Martin, Thomas B.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cooper, A. Duff
Harbord, Arthur
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Copeland, Ida
Hartland, George A.
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Milne, Charles


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hasiam, Sir John (Bolton)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-




Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Strauss, Edward A.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Robinson, John Roland
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Morrison, William Shephard
Ropner, Colonel L.
Summersby, Charles H.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Rosbotham, S. T.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n.S.)


Munro, Patrick
Ross, Ronald D.
Templeton, William P.


Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. K.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpsth)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Thompson, Luke


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Salmon, Major Isidore
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Salt, Edward W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


North, Captain Edward T.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Nunn, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


O'Connor, Terence James
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Savery, Samuel Servington
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Scone, Lord
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Palmer, Francis Noel
Selley, Harry R.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Patrick, Colin M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pearson, William G.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Peat, Charles U.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Ward. Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Penny, Sir George
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Weymouth, Viscount


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Williams, Herbert 6. (Croydon, S.)


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Soper, Richard
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ramsden, E.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wise, Alfred R.


Rankin, Robert
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Womersley, Walter James


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)



Remer, John R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Stones, James
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Storey, Samuel
Erskine.

CLAUSE 1.—(Charge of general ad valorem customs duty of 10 per cent.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after the words "section," to insert the words:
and after consultation with the appropriate department.
This Amendment is merely to ensure that the Treasury shall go to the appropriate Departments before deciding to admit other articles to the Free List.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am a little worried about this Amendment, because I am not quite sure, knowing what Government Departments are, whether it gives the Government the full powers which are necessary to approach the several Departments. Let me give a short illustration of what I have in mind. We will take the case of any commodity which has been exercising the mind of questioners during the last few days. If it is wished to keep them out for reasons connected with the Ministry of Agriculture, the Treasury may find it necessary also to look into the matter from the point
of view of the Ministry of Health, which may not be satisfied that this is a good form of commodity. May I have the assurance of the Government that they would have full power under this Amendmuent, which uses the word "Department" in the singular, to consult any Department, as might be necessary, and that any Department would have the power to put their case before the Treasury. That is all. I would like a little confirmation on that point.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to my hon. Friend, I would say that the "appropriate Department" is defined in Clause 20, which is the interpretation Clause. I think he will find that the Ministry of Health is not mentioned in that case, because there would be nothing to prevent us from consulting with any other Department.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided also that the Treasury shall, not later than twelve months after the passing of this Act, by Order direct that any fruits, vegetables, or horticultural products in connection with which no Board has been set up to administer a scheme under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, shall be added to the First Sehedule to this Act.
After the Debate which we have just had on the subject of industrial efficiency, I think the House will be able to dispose of this Amendment in much shorter time. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Agriculture will realise that this is an important Amendment and will accept it so that we may proceed with the other Amendments on the Order Paper. On this subject of marketing, we understand that the Scottish growers have already taken a step in this direction, and that they would not be averse from our imposing upon our fruit and vegetable growers an obligation similar to that which they themselves have voluntarily accepted. Every model authority will be in agreement with us when we say that now that the Government are conceding protection to fruit and vegetable growers, unless within a certain specified time they take steps for the purpose of organising their industry they would no longer be entitled to continue to exploit the consumer, who has no safeguard against inefficiency in any of its forms.
The consumption of fruit and vegetables is constantly on the increase, and in any season when prices are reasonable, there is an increased consumption. This is by no means an inconsiderable side of agriculture, and we think that a certain amount of sensible marketing can be made to provide, perhaps, the most profitable part of agricultural life. In fruit and vegetables, I understand that the normal annual value of the produce is about £18,000,000. From the point of view of employment we shall have to pay much more attention in the future to fruit and vegetables, and produce of that kind, than we have paid to wheat. The value of the wheat crop per acre is round about £6 of £7, whereas it is possible to grow £45 worth of vegetables to one acre. Therefore, this part of our agricultural produce should find employment for the maximum number of our workpeople.
I suggest that we ought to try to extend fruit and vegetable growing, which is almost entirety dependent upon efficient
marketing. The Ministry of Agriculture has produced orange book after orange book, and always takes the line of approach that the only way to deal with the problem of periodic surplus of fruit and vegetables is a system of marketing. By the establishment of a marketing scheme, under the terms of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, which is available for growers in this country, I think the surplus might be avoided. I am convinced that a good deal of the loss between the producer and the consumer could be saved to the producer, and to that extent the producer would be induced to carry on. Now as never before, the producers of fruit and vegetables are protected. They have access to a committee who can concede to them protection and a Customs Duty of 100 per cent. They have at their disposal the Agricultural Marketing Act, whereby the Minister of Agriculture is obliged to provide credit facilities wherever a marketing scheme is established. Also the Department of Agriculture's marketing officers are there.
There is everything to encourage fruit and vegetable growers to adopt the most efficient marketing methods. Marketing schemes provide the only safeguard for the consumer. The least we might expect is that the fruit and vegetable growers will, from now henceforth, endeavour to establish marketing schemes, so that wherever there happens to be a glut they will at least be able to control it. They would be able to provide the consuming public with the commodities that they require at reasonable prices, sometimes even beyond the ordinary season for vegetables and for certain kinds of fruit. The Minister of Agriculture ought to see his way clear to accept this Amendment in order to help the fruit and vegetable growers. Everything that can be done to assist the farmer to assist himself has been done, up to this moment. On the top of that, we are now protecting him to the extent of 10 per cent. He has access to an Advisory Committee who may give him a 20, 30, 40 or 100 per cent. duty. For that reason, in the interests of the consumer and of the fruit grower himself, the Government ought to accept this Amendment, so that behind the wall of Protection efficiency will be secured in this country.

Mr. PRICE: I beg to second the Amendment.
The House will fully appreciate that during the Debate on the articles covered in the Horticultural Products Bill, it was stated clearly that one of the difficulties in this country in the past has been unregulated imports for agriculturists and farmers in this kind of produce. The Act of 1931 was passed to some purpose. This House in its wisdom, and I think rightly, saw that we had arrived at the time in our agricultural policy where some facility ought to be given for reasonable marketing arrangements and for marketing boards throughout the country to deal with agriculture as a whole.
The Government are now, as my hon. Friend has reminded us, handing out Protection to this industry, and every one of us, apart from our views on the Measure, will trust that what is happening will give new life to British agriculture. At the same time, I think that, after giving Protection to an industry by taxing imported foodstuffs, this House has a right to some guarantee that the people who are engaged in and conducting this very important industry shall organise themselves efficiently, and organise their marketing in various parts of the country, for their own sake as well as for the sake of the consumer. I am afraid that, if the Government do not treat this Amendment sympathetically, the fullest advantage will not be taken of the benefits that are to accrue to the agricultural industry, and the result will be that consumers will find that the burden has to be carried by them. I suggest that this Amendment ought to be accepted. When a National Government is giving Protection to any industry, whatever it may be, we have a right to call upon those who are engaged in that industry to reorganise themselves efficiently, so that the people as a whole may get the full benefit of the reorganisation. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give the Amendment serious consideration.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I think that the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment rather under-estimate the time that will be necessary, even though the Agricultural Marketing Act is on the Statute Book, to prepare and bring into force
schemes such as are required by the provisions of that Act. Before a board can be set up, a scheme must be prepared and submitted to the Minister, and, as we know, the preparation of a scheme will take a considerable time; while, even after it has been submitted to the Minister, it is reckoned that at least eight months will necessarily elapse before a board can be constituted under the machinery of the Act. The procedure of the Act is by no means short or simple, and it is by no means entirely for the benefit of the consumer. The provisions of the Act indicate that there will be a good deal of negotiation between the various producers of a regulated product before an agreement is come to, and, therefore, in practice, this Amendment would mean that, within one year of the passing of the present Measure, some horticultural products would cease to have any protection whatever. We contend that that would merely bring back into the whole realm of horticultural production that uncertainty which is one of the greatest enemies both of horticultural production and of cheap supplies to the consumer, and, therefore, would in fact defeat the very end which the Mover and Seconder of this proposal have in view. I would ask them to look again at the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, with its pages and pages of regulations which have to be complied with before a scheme can be submitted and before a board under the Act can be set up, and to consider whether it is reasonable to ask that within one year a board such as this should be set up for every horticultural product produced in the United Kingdom. It would lead, I think, to great congestion, to inefficient schemes, to a certain number of horticultural trades and industries not being able to prepare schemes, and, in reality, to chaos and muddle in the horticultural producing industries. Therefore, we must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether his objection to the Amendment is merely in regard to the period of 12 months? If so, does he not think that some other period might be substituted? I should not object to 18 months, if he thinks that that would be a period within which fruit and vegetable growers would be able to prepare their schemes. We thought that
12 months would be ample, despite the complications of the Act. What we fear is that, unless the will is there, there will be no schemes of any kind, and we should be glad if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would at least indicate to fruit and vegetable growers that there is a desire in this House that they should organise their industry.

Major ELLIOT: By the leave of the House, I may say briefly that the Agricultural Marketing Act is still untried, and I do not think it would be fair to put in such a provision as this, even with 18 months or two years as a time limit. I do not think we should lay down a time limit for an untried Act, operating under unfamiliar procedure. We have found in all these cases that hurry is the worst thing. The agricultural industries are perfectly ready, where an industry can be properly organised, to go ahead and prepare schemes, as has been done in the case of the raspberry growers of Scotland; but in other cases an attempt to rush them is liable to defeat the very ends that we all have in view.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: While I admit that there are many good qualities in the Agricultural Marketing Act, I think it would be a great mistake to force the hands of the producers by making it compulsory upon them to apply it within 18 months, or even two years. To do so would defeat the object of the Act. Three marketing hoards have been established within the last three weeks, and hon. Members may rest assured that, when the producers see that it is to their advantage to set up marketing hoards, there will be no further delay. I am sure, however, that we shall defeat the real objects, splendid as they are, of the Marketing Act if we try to force the pace.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I can conceive of no method more capable of permanently killing the Act than this Amendment. There is not only the question of compulsion, which naturally always appeals

to hon. Gentlemen in the Opposition. They always will have it that the agricultural industry can be quite easily and simply organised into any sort of routine work. It is not only that, however, that I complain about in this Amendment. I also complain that it goes such an amazing way, because it means that, unless every small branch of horticulture, at the end of 12 months, is completely organised with a complete board—the difficulties of which I need not go into, for they have been already pointed out—their product could be put on the Free List.

Let me take fruit-growing as an illustration. If you want to increase the amount of fruit-growing and get a successful marketing board for that industry, there must obviously be an enormous increase of planting of, say, particular forms of trees. That means that the people in the industry have to look years ahead. To do what this Amendment proposes may well kill the Agricultural Marketing Act and discourage the formation of the very boards which hon. Members desire to see formed, and which I believe will ultimately be very valuable to the industry. Beyond that, it is absurd to think that you can have marketing boards for every form and variety of fruit and vegetables. A single form of flower may be grown by a few people, perhaps in two or three different parts of Great Britain, and they may have a very good market in London. It is quite impossible to organise them into a marketing board for selling. Their product may be fashionable for a year or two, and then go out altogether. If the hon. Members who are responsible for this proposal had wished to bring in an absurd Amendment, I do not think that, even with their capacity, it would have been possible to bring in one that was more absurd.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 312.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[6.55 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Harris, Sir Percy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hicks, Ernest George


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Edwards, Charles
Hirst, George Henry


Buchanan, George
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Cape, Thomas
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Janner, Barnett


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grundy, Thomas W.
Jenkins, Sir William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
John, William


Daggar, George
Halt, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Owen, Major Goronwy
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Leonard, William
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lunn, William
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


McEntee, Valentine L.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Maclean, Neil (Glatgow, Govan)
Thorne, William James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Graham.


Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Denville, Alfred
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Albery, Irving James
Dickie, John P.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hurd, Percy A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Doran, Edward
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Drewe, Cedric
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Apsley, Lord
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Aske, Sir Robert William
Duggan, Hubert John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dung lass, Lord
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Atkinson, Cyril
Eales, John Frederick
Kimball, Lawrence


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eden, Robert Anthony
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Knebworth, Viscount


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Knight, Holford


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Elmley, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Law, Sir Alfred


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Levy, Thomas


Bilndell, James
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lewis, Oswald


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Liddall, Walter S.


Boulton, W. W.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Fuller, Captain A, G.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Broadbent, Colonel John
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Particle)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McCorquodale, M. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Macdonaid, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Burghley, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Burnett, John George
Goldie, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamilton


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean, Major Alan


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gower, Sir Robert
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Magnay, Thomas


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Granville, Edgar
Maitland, Adam


Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Graves, Marjorie
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hales, Harold K.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm.,w.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milne, Charles


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne. John Sydney Wardlaw-


Christie, James Archibald
Harbord, Arthur
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Collox, Major William Philip
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Mitcheson, G. G.


Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cook, Thomas A.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morrison, William Shephard


Cooper, A. Duff
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Copeland, Ida
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Munro, Patrick


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hepworth, Joseph
Newton, Sir Douglas George C,


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hornby, Frank
Nunn, William


Cross, R. R.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
O'Connor, Terence James


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Horobin, Ian M.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Howard, Tom Forrest
Patrick, Colin M.




Peaks, Captain Osbert
Salmon, Major Isidore
Summersby, Charles H.


Pearson, William G.
Salt, Edward W.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Peat, Charles U.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Templeton, William P.


Penny, Sir George
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Thompson, Luke


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Scone, Lord
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Selley, Harry R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Pybus, Percy John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsden, E.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rankin, Robert
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Smithers, Waldron
Weymouth, Viscount


Remer, John R.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Soper, Richard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Robinson, John Roland
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rodd, Rt. Hon. sir James Rennell
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ropner, Colonel L.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wise, Alfred R.


Rosbotham, S. T.
Stones, James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ross, Ronald D.
Storey, Samuel
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Strauss, Edward A,



Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) The provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the recommendation and allowance of drawback in respect of the general ad valorem duty.
During the passage of the Bill through Committee the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked me if I could not extend the provisions of the drawback, and I said that I was quite willing to consider an Amendment which would make drawback payable in the case of articles subject to both the ad valorem and the additional duty. But I must point out that, if that were given in respect of articles which have both the additional duty and the ad valorem duty on them, the exclusion from drawback of those articles having only an ad valorem duty upon them might be considered prejudiced. Therefore, having taken that into consideration, we have thought it better to make the drawback apply in all cases—on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, of course—and this Amendment enables the provisions of the Second Schedule to apply to the ad valorem duty, and there will, of course, be a consequential Amendment in the Second Schedule.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in doing this.

Mr. ATKNSON: I wonder if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could extend its provisions to the duties imposed under the Abnormal Importations Act, or would he explain to us how they work? There is no provision in that Act for getting drawbacks unless you satisfy the Commissioners that the goods are for transhipment, but you cannot always do that.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. AMERY: In all sections of the House we shall welcome the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, but there is one observation which I should like to make upon it. The articles coming under the general ad valorem duty include a very considerable number of raw materials and foodstuffs, which rightly are not in the Schedule, which are worked up and when worked up may become the subject of exportation. I am not suggesting by any means that in all those cases there shall he drawback, but I am afraid that in many of them the provisions of the Second Schedule would hardly be applicable, or helpful. We had an interesting discussion yesterday on manila hemp
versus sisal, and I was very glad indeed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able, on the balance of considerations, to accept the view urged by myself and my friends, but I fully realise that there were arguments of substance advanced from the point of view of the export trade in manila rope. I hope that at some later stage, if not on this Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to make provision—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. It appears to me that the point which my right hon. Friend is putting is a point applicable to the provisions of the Second Schedule and not to this particular Amendment. I submit that it ought to be discussed on the Amendments to the Second Schedule.

Mr. AMERY: I was raising, not the merits or demerits of the Second Schedule in general, but the effect of the Schedule on articles which come under the ad valorem duty, that is to say, raw materials in particular, and it was only to the extent that it affected that class of article that I wished to touch upon certain aspects of the case.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather anxious lest the Second Schedule should not be discussed. He must not take up time discussing on these Amendments something that should be discussed on the Second Schedule.

Mr. AMERY: I have another motive than that. Beside the case of manila hemp, to which I wished to make particular reference as coming under this Clause, there is another class of goods coming under the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty, namely, the case of soya beans, where the article is almost wholly re-exported after it has been worked up in oil or cake. There is a strong argument for a complete drawback from the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty, but there the provisions of the Second Schedule would be ineffective to help the exporter, and therefore, apart from the merits or demerits of the Second Schedule, I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into consideration the whole drawback question in so far as it affects raw materials and foodstuffs which are under the 10 per cent. duty and are worked up for export, and to see if in
certain cases he cannot see his way to deal with those articles.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: During the Second Reacting I referred to this point and expressed the view that the general principles of the drawback were satisfactory as I then understood them. I have not perhaps read the Second Schedule as governed by this paragraph with the care that I should have done. Nevertheless, I rejoice that the drawback, where it is to be granted, will be granted in respect of the whole amount of the duty. That is thoroughly sound. I take the view that general drawback ought not to be granted in respect of articles that undergo a process of manufacture. I agree with that in general for two reasons. First, it is administratively difficult to follow through an article that undergoes a process of manufacture. Administratively it is almost impossible. Secondly, a drawback is only justified in those rare cases where a tariff leads to an increase in price.
I have always held the view that a constructive tariff will not raise prices, but I do not blind my eyes to the fact that there may be odd cases where there is a temporary increase. Where there is such a temporary increase of price there should be some provision to make sure that a substantial export trade will not be prejudiced in their cost of production because some isolated item has gone up in price. Therefore, I have always urged that there should be power on the part of the Advisory Committee to consider such a case, and, where it is desirable and administratively possible, that drawback should be given in those cases. This Amendment, which we are considering, though it meets the position will not give that security which we desire. I hope, like my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, that in due course—perhaps in some later Act—the necessary provision may be made to deal with this point, and that the Chancellor will consider a possibility of making this provision in the law.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this very valuable concession. I am surprised that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) took advantage of it to admit that in some odd cases, at any rate, a duty might increase prices. I only hope his speech does not suggest that im-
porters who wish to re-export goods shall not be deprived of their drawback because they cannot prove that prices have gone up.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution of Advisory Committee.)

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) The Chairman of the Committee and any member of the Committee shall, within one month after his appointment, relinquish any directorship which he may hold in any undertaking engaged directly or indirectly in the production or sale of any goods which if imported would be chargeable with the general ad valorem duty.
During the progress of the Bill through Committee, a good deal of scorn was poured on proposals put forward by this side that members of the Committee should divest themselves of all financial interest in questions that came within their purview. This Amendment merely proposes that they should surrender directorships in any concern which may come under the operation of the committee. There is no suggestion whatever of dishonesty. Members of the Government are men of the most impeccable character. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some Governments!"] All Governments. When I look across the Table at the Front Bench opposite, I see hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who seem to me to combine the veracity of a George Washington with the purity of a Sir Galahad and perhaps a touch of the simple folly of a Parsifal. At the same time, they have, before thy take office, to relinquish all their directorships, and I know that some of them have done it at considerable financial sacrifice. It seems to me it is only right that members of this committee should follow that very wise provision and surrender their directorships also. I believe this has the support of Members not only on these benches but in other parts of the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the Financial Secretary to obscure the issue with irrelevant farmyard remarks about bulls, cows and calves, but that he himself will make the concession which, I believe, is supported by very influential Members of his own party.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.
If the Bill is to operate successfully, it is desirable that people outside shall have the greatest confidence in those who are responsible for its administration. No one will have a greater degree of responsibility than the Chairman and members of the Committee. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government generally, would desire also that confidence should exist in the mind of the public. Confidence certainly will be strengthened if the concession we are asking for is made, but, if not, there will, with some reason, exist in the mind of the public suspicion that the personal interest of the people holding that high office may influence their judgment. It may be altogether untrue that they would be influenced in that direction, but experience in the past will influence people in coming to a decision and the personal interests of the Commissioners may perhaps outweigh their judgment and their sense of fairness and, as a consequence, public suspicion will exist. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor will make the concession that is asked for in the interests of the Bill itself and in the interests of that confidence that the public ought to have in officers holding high office under the State.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The wording of the Amendment indicates that it is supposed to protect the public from members of the Committee being influenced by personal interests, but it is clear that the interest of a director is not necessarily more than, or even as much as, the interest of a person who may not be a director but who may have shares to a, very considerable amount in the particular concern. Really, one has to trust to the standing of the sort of people who will be appointed to act with a proper sense of their responsibility. On the other hand, I agree that it is not right that members of the Committee, who are supposed to be giving their whole time to work on the Committee, should at the same time hold directorships, which, of course, would make calls on their time. I cannot accept the Amendment, but I take the opportunity of saying that I shall make it a condition of appointment of each member of the Committee that he shall at the earliest possible moment divest himself of any directorships, whether concerned
with industry or not, which he may happen to hold at the time of his appointment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I remember in the old days the late Lord Harcourt telling me, when he took office as Secretary of State for the Colonies, that he got rid of all his investments which were affected by Colonial Office work. I should have thought something of that sort might have been done by these people, because I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a large holding in shares is more important than a directorship.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McKEAG: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
in accordance with the evidence submitted to them.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that, although the committee is not technically a judicial body, it should at least act, judicially in the sense that its recommendations should bear some relation to the evidence before it. It would be manifestly improper of the committee to make any recommendations which were entirely against the weight of the evidence before it. It may be said that the committee would not do any such thing, but the safer course is that it should be placed entirely beyond the realm of possibility. The committee is invested with very great powers indeed, and it should be clearly enacted that its findings should not be arrived at too arbitrarily or by some hastily formed and ill-conceived decision. After all, the great judicial tribunals are bound by law to give decisions based upon the evidence before them. Surely it is not too much to ask that this committee should be similarly bound to have proper regard to the evidence brought before it.

Major NATHAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I wonder what the lion. Member means by "in accordance with the evidence." What evidence? A lot of evidence is going to be submitted to the committee. They have to weigh up the whole of the pros and cons with regard to any particular industry which applies for protection, and they
will come to a decision on the widest possible grounds. I hope very much that the committee will not take a purely judicial view of its functions. It is not a purely judicial body. It has to take into consideration, not merely the interests of the industries involved, but the interests of the whole of the industries of the country—the interest of British industry as a whole.

Mr. McKEAG: I take it that the hon. Member desires the advisory committee to have some regard to the evidence. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that that should be enacted in the Bill.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Clearly the committee is bound to have some regard to the evidence, or evidence would not be asked for at. all. I see no reason for the Amendment. It would only confuse the issue, and we can perfectly well leave it to the committee to decide what weight to attach to whatever evidence is submitted to them.

7.30 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: May I remind the hon. Member of a speech made by his leader, who said in, July last that this committee was to be judicial in character. The evidence given will be sifted and the facts and arguments for and against will be considered in the interest not only of the producer but of the consumer, and it will have the atmosphere associated with a court of law. This is a practical constructive proposal, so as to assure the public that when a case is put before this great and powerful committee, upon whose actions the whole future of British industry will depend, the atmosphere of a court of law as laid down by the Lord President of the Council will prevail, and that it shall not act as a committee whose ideas may be similar to those of some of the tariff commissions in America which are severely handicapping the trade of the country.

Major ELLIOT: I ask the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. whether they really desire to press it. If not, may we not get on to the other very important issues which have to come before us. The Mover of the Amendment says that it would no doubt be desired that the advisory committee should have some regard to the evidence submitted to it. How would he like me to move a manu-
script Amendment that should have some regard far giving the public and the trade of this country just as much protection as the phrase used in the Amendment which he wishes to put in here? It is not possible for this House by word spinning to fetter the committee. The value of the committee will depend upon the character of the men upon it, and the judicial or the non-judicial character of the decisions which they may make. The committee will be judged upon the decisions which they make. It is not a ease of whether or not a phrase should be put into an Act of Parliament that they should have regard to evidence submitted to them. I would point out to the House that it is half-past Seven o'Clock and that there are many important matters to come before the House. I hope that it will be possible for us to pass rapidly on to those great questions of fact upon which we can make decisions instead of trying to put expressions of opinion into Acts of Parliament.

Mr. McKEAG: If the right hon. Gentleman feels that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill already to ensure that the committee will act by having regard to the evidence before it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the power of the Committee under this Sub-section to require a person to attend as a witness before a person authorised by them shall not be exercised unless the Committee are satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the proposed inquiry, it can be conducted more conveniently or more efficiently by a person so authorised than by the Committee, and that the person proposed to be authorised possesses the necessary qualifications for the purpose.
this is the fulfilment of a promise which I made to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and also to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) to define rather more exactly the case where power is given to a person authorised by the advisory committee to examine a person attending as a witness.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making this concession.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Additional duty of customs on special classes or descriptions of goods.)

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words:
at prices which are reasonable as compared with the prices of imported goods of the same class or description and".
Sub-section (1) of the Clause lays down the matters which the advisory committee have to take into account when they are making representations to the Treasury. It sets out that when they recommend that where it appears to them that an additional duty ought to be charged
in respect of goods of any class or description which are chargeable with the general ad valorem duty and which, in their opinion, are either articles of luxury or articles of a kind which are being produced or are likely within a reasonable time to be produced in the United Kingdom. … the Committee may recommend.… additional duty.
We are anxious that it should not really be a question of production in the United Kingdom, but production at a reasonable price, so that you cannot, as it were, use this provision to start some small industry in the United Kingdom which would never naturally come here, but which could only be fostered by some exorbitant price level and which would not only be the result of a 10 per cent. tariff. We feel that there should be some sort of indication given in the Clause to the advisory committee to limit their powers in cases where goods are likely to be produced within a reasonable time in the United Kingdom. I would point out that they must take into consideration, when thinking of that likelihood, the price at which those goods were likely to be sold when produced. Obviously, from the consumers' point of view it is a most important thing that there should not be introduced here a new industry which is unsuited to the country and which never can, even in the long run, produce goods at a reasonable and fair price compared with the imported goods of the same class or description. I do not think that there is anything in this which would hamper the Committee in their actions, but it
would give them the guide the Government would wish them to have in considering the question of the setting up of new industries.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the Amendment is likely to produce the effect which the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently has in mind. He suggests that it might be possible to use a 10 per cent, duty to foster an industry which is essentially unsuited to this country.

Sir S. CRIPPS: An additional duty. The Clause deals with the additional duty. I said an industry which could not be fostered by the ad valorem duty but which could be fostered by an additional duty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that it is very unlikely that the advisory committee would recommend an additional duty if they thought that as a result of that duty the industry was likely to be charging unreasonable prices. I may say that if their prices became too unreasonable even the additional duty would not prevent the influx of foreign goods made in countries more suitable for their production, and that would, of course, prove its own corrective. I do not think that the committee are likely to try and foster industries essentially unsuited to this country, but if it were found, after the imposition of an additional duty, that unreasonable prices were in fact being charged, then the Commissioners could take them off again under the provisions of the Bill. We ought to have regard to the facts and not to speculation as to what is likely to happen in the future. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert the words "the cost of living."
I do not think that a very elaborate argument is needed to justify the insertion of these words. At present, the Advisory Committee is asked to have regard to the advisability of restricting imports and the interest generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom, including those of trades and indus-
tries which are consumers, but there is no instruction, or no words indicating that the committee should consider what, after all, is more important than anything else, namely, the cost of living. How important this is can be brought home to the House by reminding it of what happened during the discussion on meat. A very strong case was put up for a duty on meat in order to encourage production by stock-breeders in an industry which is going through a bad time, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted those arguments on the ground that he was considering the cost of living. The cost of living ought always to be in the mind of the committee. They may say that it is quite outside their scope and that it is their business to consider the question of imports, and the producers and the users of raw material. It would be a great assurance to the general public and to the consumers to know that when the committee are considering applications for protection they had an instruction from the House of Commons always to bear in mind the cost of living. If the index figure of the cost of living began to rise, such an instruction would have an influence upon the committee.

Mr. McKEAG: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: Surely, the cost of living is a matter of high policy for the Government and this House to consider. The recommendations of the committee must, first of all, be accepted by the Government and brought forward by the Government to this House. The hon. Member, two days ago, twitted me with desiring to remove matters from the purview of the House, but he himself is doing it in this Amendment. The committee has to make technical recommendations, but the duty of drawing up It policy for the protection of this country cannot be taken away from this House, and all considerations in regard to the cost of living are properly considered here in the great Consumers' Council of the Kingdom. This is the body which ought to consider the question, and on those grounds I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. MANGER: I am sorry that the Government do not seem to be able to accept the Amendment, because in the
present state of the country and of public opinion, I do not think that we can be too careful in putting in every safeguard in connection with the cost of living. There are large numbers of people who are suffering the greatest hardship through the administration of the means test—a test which is called "the meals test" in my constituency. If there is the slightest chance of their having to pay more as a result of taxes which are put upon them they will be placed in a position of great. hardship and cruelty. It would be a most cruel thing to do, and I urge the Government, while they do not desire to do anything of the kind, to make things doubly sure by permitting a guide to the advisory committee of this kind to be put into the Bill.

Mr. LEWIS: Hon. Members supporting the Amendment overlook the fact that they are really protecting the Government from the necessity of justifying their policy in regard to the cost of living. If the Amendment were carried, the Government would be in a position of saying that it was a thing which could not increase the cost of living and that it had been carefully investigated by the tribunal appointed for the purpose. I submit that on those grounds at least the hon. Members ought not to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, after the word "interests," to insert the words:
primarily of wage-earners both as producers and consumers, and the interests.
The House will notice that the Subsection gives advice to the effect that
the Committee shall have regard to the advisability in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom and the interests generally of trade and industry.
The Amendment provides that the interests primarily of wage-earners both as producers and consumers shall also be taken into account. There is a danger that among the industries that will take advantage of these import duties there will be inefficient ones. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told certain bodies that there was a danger of that, and many hon. Members have pointed out that fact. It is well known that some of the inefficient industries pay very poor wages. The conditions are so poor in some of
these industries that many of the workers are not organised to defend themselves, and the trade boards have been set up to deal with those particular conditions. I remember one particular industry which, if it had been existing now, would have come under these duties for protection on the ground that they could not carry on, but the trade board system actually made that industry one of the best in the country, whilst doing something to organise the workers.
It is a very small thing to ask this House to make sure that the interests of the workers are protected, when other interests are being protected. One of the arguments that have been used by supporters of the Government has been that the Bill will do something towards giving good wages. I do not admit that. Those who have practical experience of industry know very well that unless the trade unions and the trade boards do something definitely to protect the workers, they will not be protected under this Measure, and they will not be assured of their wages. As it is admitted that industries should be efficient and pay decent wages, I do not see how the Government can refuse to accept our Amendment, which lays it down quite clearly that the interests of the workers shall he considered. We ask that they shall be considered both as producers and consumers, because they will have to pay more as a result of the import duties for the goods which they consume. Therefore, it is the more imperative that the workers in those particular industries should have consideration in that respect.
We have been told that these matters will receive consideration. If they are to receive consideration, we say that the only guarantee to the people concerned is to lay that condition down in the Bill, very definitely. Therefore, I hope the Financial Secretary will give some satisfaction to the workers on this point. The great body of wage earners in general also need consideration as consumers, and if the Government are serious about these matters they will see that they receive consideration. If the Government do not accept the Amendment, it must be regarded as quite clear that they are definitely putting the Bill through in the interests of trade and industry and the employers, without regard to the workers as producers and consumers.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so formally in order to save time.

Major ELLIOT: This seems to be an attempt, and not a very successful attempt, to define the words "national interests." This attempt to personify trade and industry and to separate trade and industry from the wage earners and producers, will not stand the test of examination. What is trade and industry if it is not the wage earners as producers and consumers who are engaged in it? Anyone who examines the position of trade and industry does not look simply at the necessity of producing so many articles. One has to consider also the people who are to buy the articles and the people who are making the articles. You cannot separate the national interests from the interests of the wage earners. The two things are practically speaking co-terminal. How does the hon. Member imagine that he is safeguarding the position of the wage earners by putting a phrase into a Bill which is to be administered by a body of people who, he thinks, have not the interests of the wage earners at heart? Are a few words in an Act of Parliament going to alter the views of such a body, if they are of that type? It is the whole spirit of the administration which will determine the action that is taken. The words which the hon. Member seeks to insert would have no more effect than a cobweb, if these people were set up to crush and beat down the wage earners as producers and consumers.
The arguments which I addressed to hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House apply with even more force in this case. The tribunal before which the masses of the people of this country bring their case, is this House and not any committee. The Government are the body who bring recommendations before the House and stand responsible for them until they have been sanctioned by the House. Then the House stands responsible for them, and it is impossible for the House to get rid of its responsibility and to put it on to the shoulders of a committee. It would be altogether wrong for the Advisory Committee to be the body which is to be the guardian of the wage earners of this country. My hon. Friend opposite and his colleagues are the guardians of the wage earners
from their point of view and we are the guardians of the wage earners from our point of view. This particular committee is for the purpose of giving technical advice and of taking all things into consideration as far as it can, but the final judge on these matters is this House, and the final decision will be taken upon the Floor of this House. Words such as are suggested in the Amendment will not be of the slightest advantage to the wage earners.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We have no desire to prolong the Debate, but I would say that the arguments used by the Financial Secretary have been very thin. The interests of the workers as producers and consumers must be safeguarded and we are anxious to safeguard them in the terms of a Bill which, from the Financial Secretary's point of view, is primarily introduced in the interests of trade and business generally. It is quite true, as he says, that we are the guardians of the poor and of the workers—

Major ELLIOT: Do not let the hon. Member be under any misapprehension in regard to a suggestion of that kind. He is the guardian of the poor in his constituency and is responsible to them, and I am the guardian of the poor in my constituency and am responsible to them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That may be true, but if in this House we pass a Bill to consolidate the position of trade and the interests of the employers, without any relation to the workers as workers, or wages as wages, it is clear that a very vital part of our industrial organism is being ignored. We disagree entirely with the case which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but, in the interests of preserving the time of the House, we do not propose to go to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Preference for Dominions, India, and Southern, Rhodesia.)

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, to leave out from the word "Parliament" to the word "then," in line 20.
8.0 p.m.
When the idea of Imperial Preference was first put forward in this country by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, it was to put a tax on imported goods, food and raw materials, the main purpose being to give a preference to the Dominions, whilst
admitting Dominion goods free. We have now a very different proposal. The proposal is that, automatically, a 10 per cent. duty should come on, but that there should be a conference at Ottawa, and if no agreement is arrived at there, then, on the 15th November, or at a later date to be specially fixed by Parliament, there shall be for the first time the possibility of a tax of 10 per cent, being placed upon food and raw materials coming from our Dominions, or from some of our Dominions. That is the proposition, and I do not think that the fact is realised in the country. Many hon. Members to whom I have spoken were quite unconscious of that intention in the Bill. I am given to understand that the 10 per cent. duty is to be used as a lever at the Conference to bargain with and to try to persuade the various Dominions to lower their tariffs. The tariffs in the Dominions have been made to suit their domestic needs and what they consider to be the interests of their industries. If I read the Clause aright, it means that if as the result of negotiations the Dominion of New Zealand is prepared to give substantial concessions on our imports, then next November the 10 per cent. duty will not be put upon their goods but if, on the other hand, Australia considers that the interests of Australia must prevail, and she refuses to give us adequate consideration, for the first time certain foodstuffs and products from that Dominion will be subject to a 10 per cent. tax. Take the case of apples, which come from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. According to the Bill it will be possible for a 10 per cent. tax to be imposed upon Canadian apples while New Zealand apples may come in free. The same applies to butter. Butter from Australia, if a satisfactory bargain cannot be arranged at Ottawa, may be subject to a 10 per cent. tax whilst butter from New Zealand may come in free. That is the way to break up the Empire. If you have these differential rates of duty you will create bad blood and bitterness throughout the whole of the Dominions.
I opposed with all my strength the proposals of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain because they involved a tax upon food, but now that we have this 10 per cent. tax on food I would much rather make a generous concession in the interests of the consumer and allow food and raw materials
from the Dominions to come in on a Free Trade basis. But if there is going to be bargaining at Ottawa, if there is to be a tax imposed, either of 10 per cent. or a lesser amount, it is much better to make it apply throughout the Empire than to make a concession here and a concession there according to the bargaining power and capacity of the particular Government in a particular Dominion. According to a telegram in "The Times" of to-day Mr. Forbes the Prime Minister of New Zealand said:
In accordance with her traditional practice in Empire affairs New Zealand will not go to Ottawa with any desire to bargain unduly with Great Britain. Any bickerings over tariff concessions will be avoided at all costs.
I want to avoid bickerings at all costs and the way to do that is to leave these words out. We do not want to have differential duties against various parts of the British Commonwealth of nations. I prefer to let their food products in free. If they are to be taxed then apply the tax all round, to Australia, to New Zealand, to Canada, so that there shall be no bitterness between them. This is entirely against the whole spirit and ideals of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and Free Trade, and fundamentally against the interests of the British Empire.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: I doubt whether the Amendment carries out the intention of the hon. Member, and, indeed, it would come more suitably in the next Subsection of the Clause. But let me ask him to consider that, there will not be the bad blood he fears between the various Dominions. Nothing does more harm in negotiations or discussions with the Dominions than the suggestion that they have not yet grown up into communities who are treating with us as equals. We are desirous of entering into commercial agreements with certain great friendly nations closely akin to us, and it is foolish to suggest that it is impossible to come to an agreement with any one of these nations unless you come to an identical agreement with the rest. The Dominions do not desire it, nor would they for a moment resent the suggestion that an agreement may be arranged between two members of the British Commonwealth of Nations which
would not necessarily commend itself to every other member. This is not going to break up the Empire. I am not less desirous of keeping the Empire together than the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I desire to recognise the newer conditions which have arrived, not conditions under which the father of a family cannot give a lollipop to one child without having to give a similar lollipop to another. That is a conception of adolescence. When the sons have grown up and are discussing arrangements with their father it is not necessary that the father, who may be entering into partnership with one of his sons, should also have to enter into partnership with all the others. Very often a son does not desire to enter into partnership with his father.

Sir P. HARRIS: That is the way to cause trouble in the family.

Major ELLIOT: If the way to cause trouble in a family is to insist that every one of his adult sons must enjoy exactly the same treatment, and live under precisely the same conditions, then all I can say is that the sons must be very different from those of the type of Scottish family with which I am acquainted. We are entering upon discussions in which sentiment must play its part, but not the whole part or even the preponderating part. We desire to arrange commercial agreement, and nothing can do more harm than to suggest that if we give an advantage to one Dominion, the loss of that advantage will be resented by all the others. The Dominions are going forward in a spirit of co-operation just as we are, but they are not going forward in the spirit which suggests that unless they get identical treatment they will go away bitterly disappointed and proceed to break up the Empire. The general principle of the Amendment is fallacious, and as the principle is at fault we cannot possibly accept the Amendment. I hope the hon. Member will not press it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 3, after the word "sub-section," insert the words:
or are goods of a class or description which are not grown, produced, or manufactured in that country."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Power of Board of Trade to require information.)

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:
(e) The wages, hours, and conditions of labour of the persons employed.
This would be very useful information for the Board of Trade and also subsequently for the House of Commons. The Clause says that the Board of Trade shall present a summary of the information obtained by them in respect of any year. I know that this information, as far as it applies to individual firms and employers, will be strictly private; but as we are to have a summary of the information it would be useful to have a summary of the number of persons employed and the actual conditions under which they are employed. We are to have a summary as regards the quantity and value of the output, the quantity and cost of the materials, and the quantity and cost of the fuel and electricity consumed, but merely the number of workmen employed. I suggest that we should have information also in regard to the wages, hours and conditions of labour of persons employed, which will be useful not only to this House but to the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member wants to have laid before Parliament, simultaneously with the other information referred to in this Sub-section, particulars as to wages and other matters of industrial interest, but in point of fact that information is now available. The Ministry of Labour regularly collects all the statistics for which the hon. Member asks, and they are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette at regular intervals and in the Statistical Abstract. Investigation into these particular matters is made at regular periods, and on a most comprehensive scale. The last investigation affected between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 workpeople as to their wages, and there is an investigation in process at the present time. In addition, the Ministry of Transport collects all particulars in regard to railways, and the Ministry of Mines in regard to the coal-mining industry, and, lastly, in a number of specific industries, the woollen and
worsted and pottery industries for instance, particulars are collated and published monthly. In these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will appreciate the fact that the Board of Trade would be going outside its proper functions and would be trespassing on the functions of the Ministry of Labour if it were to add this to the tasks it has already to perform.

Mr. LAWSON: The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary is based upon false premises, because he says that these figures are at the disposal of the parties concerned. That is not the case. The Ministry of Labour does not get information as to the whole of the wages and arrangements in all the industries of this country. That is one of their difficulties in dealing with the question of wages. They only get the information in regard to arrangements made between certain trade unions and the employers.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 10, line 8, after the word "shall," insert the words "for each offence."

In line 11, after the word "pounds," insert the words:
or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Provisions as to orders.)

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 11, to leave out the words "or to the making of a new order."
I understand that under this Clause any order imposing a duty will cease to have effect unless there has been an affirmative resolution by this House. I would like an explanation as to the exact bearing of the phrase that I have moved to omit. Does it mean that if there is no affirmative resolution in this House, the order drops; or does it mean that if the House has refused to confirm an order the order can immediately be made again and introduced into this House, and that the previous resolution has no effect at all?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member asked whether it would be possible, when an order has been annulled by vote of the House of Commons, for another order to be introduced. I gathered from a conversation between himself and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on an
earlier occasion that they thought a new way had been discovered by the Treasury whereby the Treasury could govern the country by successive orders, each running for 28 days, each annulled by the House, and each order promptly reintroduced by the Treasury. That really is an Alice in Wonderland position that is not possible, and for this reason: No House of Commons would for a moment tolerate a Government that continued to introduce orders which the House had clearly shown that it did not desire to have introduced. The Treasury is not a body independent of this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brings these orders forward. He is the Minister responsible, and the Cabinet is responsible with him. If the Government is defeated on such an order it is clear that sooner or later a Vote of Censure would be introduced if the Government continued to reintroduce such orders, and the Government would fall.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There was the case of the Prayer Book. It came up before this House again and again.

Major ELLIOT: I do not think the conditions are similar, and I would hate to introduce the odium theologicum into this Debate, as well as all the other odia which are under discussion at the moment. These words are used merely for the purpose of ensuring that the House of Commons, having annulled one such Order, the Government is not thereby debarred from reintroducing an Order in terms so modified as to meet the objects and wishes of the House of Commons, as indicated when the original Order was annulled. There is no ulterior motive of dominating the House by a series of dictatorships each running for a period of 28 days.

Mr. ATTLEE: After that explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I beg to move, in page 17, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
and no such Order shall become operative unless and until the same shall have been confirmed by a resolution of the House of Commons.
The principle underlying the Amendment is that the Orders ought to come to the House of Commons first, before going to
the advisory committee and becoming operative. The object of the Amendment is to retain the control of this House over the most important matter which pertains to this House, namely, taxation. The Financial Secretary who spoke on this subject on a previous occasion seemed to think that we ought to get rid of the bother of coming to the House of Commons with these Orders. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not make the same speech again and I hope also that I shall not make the same speech as I did when I raised the question before. I put the Amendment down again on this Clause because we had not an opportunity previously of moving it, and both the Financial Secretary and myself dealt with the matter on the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I desire now to elicit from the Financial Secretary some response to the speech then made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who expressed a view on this subject which is held by many Members of the Labour party and no doubt by many Members of the Conservative party also.
This is not a, matter of Free Trade or Protection. It is a question of the powers and control of the House over finance. We have had trouble in the past as a result of attempted interference with those powers by the House of Lords, for example, and it was laid down in a series of Resolutions in 1860 that the right of granting Supply rested in the Commons alone and that they alone had power to deal with the matter, manner, measure and time of such proposals. Under this Bill the Advisory Committee or the Board of Trade would have the power of putting a duty into operation, and Members of the House of Commons, whatever their views, could offer no opinions upon or no information concerning that duty before it came into operation. There are rumours that secret arrangements may be made by which this small body can put these duties into operation. They will then be laid on the Table of the House and they have to be either annulled or confirmed within 28 days. I ask hon. Members to whatever party they may belong, whether they are Tariff Reformers or Free Traders, do they imagine that if these duties are put into
force by this advisory body there will be any chance of having them rescinded in this House? Hon. Members may have special views and special knowledge concerning a particular duty—on velvet, say, or silk, or some other commodity—but they will not have the opportunity of expressing their views on that duty before it is made operative.
8.30 p.m.
I ask the Financial Secretary if it is not possible, when duties have been agreed upon by the Advisory Committee, to bring those proposals to the House of Commons within 24 hours and have them either confirmed or annulled. Many hon. Members have expert knowledge on these subjects and would be able to contribute their quota of information and expert advice as to whether a duty is advisable or not. Under the Bill as it stands, they would be powerless. I ask hon. Members, irrespective of their views on fiscal questions, to consider whether it is not an affront to the House of Commons to reduce the ordinary Member of the House to the position of a lay figure, to infer that his opinion and his knowledge are of little or of no avail and that he need not be called upon to express any views on these subjects? During the past few days we have had Debates on such subjects as sisal and hemp and valuable speeches have been made, both for and against the inclusion of those articles. If the Bill goes through in this form, Members will be unable to express their views on any additional duty. Those duties will, at once, become the law of the land, though of course they will be laid on the Table and can be rescinded or annulled within 28 days.
The Amendment is not a wrecking Amendment but a helpful Amendment. It seeks to avoid the disorganisation which would take place if a duty were enforced and then found to be unworkable. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is probably anxious to make this machine efficient, and he regards the House of Commons in this connection, possibly, as a nuisance, but I ask him to consider the advantage, before these duties come into operation, of having the opinions of Members of the Labour party and the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Liberal party."] It is not because I do not recognise the strength of that party's case that I did not men-
tion it first, but this is not a matter of party. It is a matter for the whole House of Commons. On a previous occasion, the House of Lords, an autocratic body like the Board of Trade attempted to interfere in a matter of this kind, and the Speaker of the day, who was—as I am sure you are, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—jealous of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, ruled against the action of the House of Lords as an interference with the rights of the House of Commons and prevented that action on their part from being effective. Here we have an instance of this power being handed over by the House to an independent body like the Board of Trade, and, whatever views we hold on fiscal questions, we shall all be parties to this proceeding. The Financial Secretary did not give me much sympathy when we discussed this matter previously, but I hope that he is now prepared to admit that there is some substance in this Amendment. I know the difficulty of trying to meet my case. I know that he is anxious, as he says, to avoid forestalling, but if this Clause were amended in such a way that these Orders would have to come immediately to the House of Commons, before becoming operative, the time would be so short that it would have little or no effect in regard to forestalling.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the position may be summarised in this way—that before this House throws over its rights, and all possibility of examining each duty as it comes forward, we ought carefully to consider the action which we are taking. I do not think it necessary to elaborate further what has been so well and clearly said by my hon. Friend, but I would like to ask the Financial Secretary, in the light of the views which have been presented to him, to reconsider this point.

Mr. HANNON: I want to ask the hon. Member one question. In the course of his speech he referred to some secret arrangement. What did he mean?

Mr. MASON: I said that it had been stated, and it lends itself to that rumour, that there may be secret arrangements made for the duties being formulated and created.

Mr. HANNON: That is an extremely serious statement to make, that a body
with the powers contemplated under this Bill will be a party to any sort of secret arrangement. I hope the hon. Member will tell us precisely what he means or else withdraw his statement.

Mr. MASON: In the nature of things, these arrangements must be confidential and secret.

Major ELLIOT: It shows the disadvantage under which we are placed in discussing hypothetical questions on manuscript Amendments, and I suggest that there are many very important things still to come before the House which we desire to discuss. I would say in a word on this issue that it has been argued out on previous stages of the Bill, and I have seen no reason to change the view which I then recommended to the Committee, and which was accepted by the Committee, namely, that the rights of this House are safeguarded by the provision that unless an affirmative order is passed by this House within 28 days the duty lapses. The hon. Member said that this was such an invasion of the rights of the House of Commons that it necessitated a deep and thorough examination of constitutional precedents reaching away back to 1860 and, for aught I know, to the time when King Charles I came down with his gunmen to the House of Commons. Any Order made must be confirmed by an affirmative resolution of the House, otherwise it is operative for only 28 days. It is the commonest of Customs procedure, and is accepted by this House and by every other legislative body in the world, and it is accepted because of the common sense view that to put up a notice saying that in 28 days we shall impose a tax is an invitation to the whole world to bring every possible importation into our ports before that time elapses.
As for the suggestion that these orders would immediately come before the House of Commons, and that all other business would be stopped, that a crisis in India, a financial crisis, or anything else is to be immediately adjourned while the House of Commons determines whether a duty shall be put on bristle brushes or not, it is absurd. It would be impossible to bring them immediately before the House, and I suggest that, the issue having been discussed so thoroughly as it has been, and the two sides being apparently unshakeably
opposed to each other in their opinions, we might pass on to the other great decisions which still have to be taken by this House before 11 o'clock to-night.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 18, line 24, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words "(including all parts of India)."

Mr. ATTLEE: What does this Amendment mean? Why is this phrase "all parts of India" put in?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is this a provision which, under the circumstances, say, of the separation of India and Burma, would enable Burma to be included?

Major ELLIOT: No. It is merely to make quite sure of the position of the Native States in India. There was a certain amount of dubiety as to the exact legal position of the Native States. It would not refer to the separation of India and Burma, for then Burma would take its place as another territory, but the position of the Native States within India seemed to give rise to some slight dubiety, and on that account this Amendment is moved.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Goods exempted from the general ad valorem duty.)

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to move, in page 20, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
Such personal clothing or other belongings of a person entering the United Kingdom as shall appear to the Commissioners to be reasonably necessary for his personal use.
Very many years ago our ancestors could have entered this country with propriety, and without drawing undue attention to themselves, clothed in some of the articles which we already have in the Schedule, so long as they had not elected to appear in goatskin, without paying any duty upon them, and of course some years before that it might have been quite a moot point whether one of our ancestors themselves could have come in here, duty free or not. I suppose it may still arise as the duty of some Customs officer to decide whether an ape is a live quadruped animal. In these more civilized
times it is obviously necessary for those travelling to this country to come in here both clothed and bringing belongings with them, and it seems to me that as the Bill is now drawn they cannot legally bring those goods in free unless they happen to come from one of the Colonies or from one of our Dominions oversea. I think they certainly ought to have the right to come in, and I have no doubt that the Government do not in the least wish to put any duty upon those who do come in as ordinary passengers.
I raise this paint to see whether it is quite clear that they can come in without the unnecessary vexation that otherwise might be caused to travellers in the ports of this country. The answer may be that they do not come under this Bill at all, but if that be so, I see very little distinction between, for instance, one of the Members of His Majesty's Government returning from Geneva, and being charged on his suit of clothes, and the case of a similar charge which has apparently been made upon secondhand clothes brought into this country under the Abnormal Importations Act, and used ultimately to clothe the natives of West Africa, I think it was, at a funeral. If one is charged, very likely the other becomes liable to duty. That line, however, may not be taken, and it may be said that indeed they are normally included in this Bill, although, under a kind of dispensing power with the Customs, they are never actually made liable to duty. I have studied the Customs Consolidation Act, and the only Section in it which I could find dealing with this matter is Section 17, which states:
All duties of Customs or other duties … now imposed and allowed or which may hereafter be imposed or allowed by law shall be … ascertained, raised, levied, collected, paid, recovered, allowed, applied or appropriated under the provisions of the laws for the time being in force relating thereto.
So it seems to me that it is the duty of the Customs officer to collect these duties unless the House of Commons lays it down that they shall not be collected on this particular class of goods. I really raise this point in order to get an assurance from the Government that there is no intention of charging such goods when they enter this country, thus causing a lot of unnecessary friction with people
lawfully travelling between this country and places abroad. If there legally vests in the Customs a power to dispense with the duty in such cases, I am quite content with that. If there be no such power, I suggest to the Government that they accept my Amendment which gives that power to the Commissioners, and I hope that it is drawn in such a way as not unnecessarily to fetter any discretion that they may show.

Mr. MORRISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is not necessary to say very much in support of the Amendment in view of the precise speech of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is clearly undesirable that travellers to this country should be subjected to Customs duties on their personal belongings which are not intended for sale in this country. In the Free List the only clothing which appears to be exempt are hides and skins, but these have to be raw, dried, salted or pickled, and it is no encouragement to the "Come to Britain" movement if we ask people to clothe themselves, for the purpose of escaping duty, in salted skins. The only other possible article on the Free List in which people might be clothed is newsprint, but I submit that that is an undesirably tenuous form of garment which we do not wish to encourage our travellers to adopt. No doubt we shall he told that our Amendment is needless because the Customs have been in the habit of exercising a dispensing power in regard to articles now subject to duty. If that be so, the purpose for which I second the Amendment is to make sure on what legal grounds that dispensing power is based. It is desirable in the public interest that we should know that a department exercising a discretion of that kind exercise it in accordance with the will of this House, and that it is based upon some definite rule in the Statute. It may be said that as it has been done in the past without complaint, so it will be done in future. We must, however, recollect that in this Bill we are subjecting to duty a very large number of articles of a complicated description which have not been taxable before.
It may be said that the Customs are so benevolent that it is not necessary for the House to supervise their discretion in
this direction. I am not so sure of that. I will take an illustration of what I mean by a discretion vested in the Customs. In regard to the Entertainments Duty a provision was passed by this House allowing the Commissioners to exempt from that duty entertainments of a bona fide charitable nature. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, in exercising that discretion, have laid down certain rules by which they judge whether or not an entertainment is charitable. Judging from a case which came before me quite recently of a pageant we had at Tewkesbury, it seems that the rules have become more important than the Statute; the gloss is more important than the text. For these reasons, it is necessary that any discretionary powers of that kind should be based upon the will of the House and not merely left to rest on some long continued custom which has never been challenged. When we are taking the step in the public interest of imposing these duties, we ought to make sure that, if the Customs exercise this power, it is exercised in accordance with the law and based upon the will of the House.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry that my hon. Friends have been put to the trouble of making such long speeches, although they have been able to entertain us by their humour. All that they desire is a declaration as to the practice which the Customs intend to follow in regard to personal clothing. From time immemorial the Customs have placed no restrictions whatever on persons entering this country in their own clothing, and it is not the intention of Customs, when this Bill comes into effect, to modify that practice in any way. I think that we can leave it to the discretion of a very reasonable body of men.

Mr. HANNON: This does not at all dispose of this important matter. Does this mean that the Customs will pursue their previous habit of allowing people to walk into the country in their clothes, and that people cannot bring in an extra suit of clothes?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If you try to define what a man's or a woman's clothing should be, you will create more difficulties than you will solve.

Amendment negatived.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 20, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
Goods to be used as material in the manufacture of articles in the United Kingdom.
The object of moving this Amendment is to try, perhaps rather hopelessly, to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is better to leave free of tax all raw materials rather than try and select one lot or another according to the whim of the Advisory Committee or to the pressure which can be brought to bear on this House as regards the various items. There is already in the Free List in the Schedule a great number of raw materials, and it is obvious that they have been placed there for exemption because they are raw materials. For instance, such a thing as cotton was clearly put there as the great raw material of the cotton industry. One finds, on the other hand, that raw materials of the cotton finishing industry, which is quite as important as the cotton industry, are entirely left out of the list. There are such things as gums, and so on, which are produced to only a small extent in the Empire., which are completely omitted from this list of raw materials.
We suggest that if, instead or trying to pick and choose between the various industries, thus causing some to pay duties and leaving others free from duties, you recognise the position that certain raw materials must be omitted for the sake of the industries of this country, the only logical thing to do is to omit all raw materials which are used by industries. Otherwise, you inevitably put some industries at an advantage and some at a disadvantage. To some industries, such as the cotton finishing trade, which works on the very narrowest margin—one thirty-second of a penny a yard and margins of that sort—it will be a great detriment if they find that their essential raw materials are being taxed. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this Amendment as being really the principle which lies behind the Schedule instead of trying to pick out this and that industry and giving it a favourable position compared with the others.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) concealed the despair which he felt as
to the possibility of this Amendment being accepted, but I am sure he will admit that nothing is more unlikely than that such an Amendment should be accepted at this stage of the Bill. It is indeed equivalent to taking the Third Reading on the First Schedule, and I suggest that it would be more convenient to take the Third Reading when we come to the Third Reading than at this point. It may be true, as the hon. and learned Member said, that having started upon a Free List the only logical thing to do is to put everything in the Free List, but this House and this country have not always been governed by logic, and I am not sure that the wisest actions of this House have been those which were most strongly marked by logic. The logical action which we took in regard to the thirteen states of North America split an Empire. On many occasions the House has done foolish things when it based itself on logic, and wise things when it trusted to practice. It is now trusting to practice and I ask the hon. and learned Member to allow us to debate this question of practice on the wider final stage of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to move in page 20, line 21, after the word "flax" to insert the words "and true hemp (cannabris sativa)."
This Amendment is to be read in conjunction with another Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also agreed to accept to substitute for the words "flax tow" the words "tow of flax and true hemp (cannabris sativa)."
The Schedule will then read:
Flax and true hemp (cannabris sativa) not further dressed after scutching or decorticating; tow of flax and true hemp (cannabris sativa),

Miss HORSBRUGH: In seconding this Amendment, I would like to point out that this product is in no wise in competition with any product from the Dominions or the Colonies. Having been defeated on the harder fibre of this particular industry, I come back to the softer side, and it is with faith and hope that we put forward this Amendment in order to save an industry which employs many hundreds of people. The raw material can be got only from certain parts. Italian hemp is three times the
price and sisal is not in competition with it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very glad to accept this Amendment, and thus to fulfil the promise I made to my hon. Friends yesterday that I would see that this kind of hemp, which does not compete with the Colonial product, should be put in the Free List; and I am very glad, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) had to fall, that at any rate she has fallen soft.

9.0 p.m.

Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLAR: I would like to associate myself with the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Amendment in saying that it meets the needs of an industry which is not confined to the Division which they represent but is carried on, also, in the Division which I have the honour to represent. I am glad to know that this form of the Amendment meets precisely the desires of the manufacturers concerned, of which fact I have received confirmation this afternoon, and I would like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. ROSS: I do not wish to allow the Scottish people who are interested in the linen industry to have it all their own way. Although the Scotch are notoriously a much more loquacious race than the Irish, I wish to be associated with the thanks expressed by the hon. Members to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for furfilling the promise he made yesterday. There is this fact to be remembered, that in fulfilling his promise he has not affected the productions of the Empire in any way, as this particular hemp cannot be produced in the Empire. When we are producing goods for a foreign market such a duty on a raw material which is not, produced by us would be a very serious matter indeed for the industry, which has had very hard times through foreign competition.

Major COLFOX: My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seems to think that we are discussing flax. We are not discussing flax, but discussing hemp, and as the Member in whose constituency is situated the oldest manufactory of hemp products I would like to add my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to tell him that the West Dorset hemp manufacturers,
who have been established for over 300 years, will be very grateful for this concession.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 22, leave out the words "flax tow" and insert instead thereof the words "tow of flax and true hemp (cainnabris sativa)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, in page 21, line 3, after the word "rods" to insert the words "lead, zinc."
This is a manuscript Amendment and at this late hour of the evening I propose to deal with it in only a very few words.

Sir S. CRIPPS: What is the Amendment?

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman with whom I am associated in this matter has not supplied me with a copy of it, so I cannot read the ipsissima verbs, but if the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will be patient I will give him the effect of it. The purpose of the Amendment is to save from the duty lead and zinc. It may seem strange that this Amendment has been proposed from the quarter from which it conies, and I am quite prepared to meet with a certain amount of laughter from those who are opposed to the fiscal principles which I hold, but I will state briefly the reasons which have induced my right hon. Friend to submit this Amendment. For I he last few years there has been an excess of Colonial production in these articles over United Kingdom consumption. The effect of excluding these articles from the Schedule will be that probably nothing except the Colonial metal will come in, and all foreign supplies will be absolutely excluded and will be sold on the Continent. Therefore, there will be no revenue from the duties, as the Colonial production is in excess of United Kingdom consumption. It would seem to be clear that the Colonial producers will be able to ask any price that they like, provided that it is just a shade less than the foreign price plus 10 per cent. Here we have not the position which will arise on other articles excluded from the Schedule, where, by reason of the 10 per cent. duty, there will be an impetus given to Colonial production, because, as I have already pointed out,
Colonial production is in excess of our consumption at present.
I am informed, and the information I believe to be absolutely accurate, that the Colonial producers of these metals are in the case of lead the Broken Hill Associated Smelters Proprietory, Limited, the Burma Corporation Limited and the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Corporation of Canada; and, in the ease of zinc, are the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Tasmania, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Corporation of Canada, the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company and the Imperial Smelting Corporation of Avonmouth and Swansea. It is the fact that all the above companies are represented by the Amalgamated Metal Corporation, Limited, of London, which is a combination of the interests of the British Metal Corporation, Limited, and Henry Gardner and Company, Limited. It is true therefore that the production, to a very large percentage indeed, is in the hands of one particular combine, or of associated companies which form the combine. There is another one, the Mount Isa Mines, and I understand that they are found in the North East of Kenya. There are no outside producers of Empire zinc. I have to give these facts and figures—for troubling the House with them at this hour I apologise—because it is one of the main bases of my argument.
The fact is that since this duty, or proposed duty, appeared in the Bill, the English consumers' contracts have been cancelled. That is to say, the price that they had been paying before the Bill is now different. It has increased. [Interruption.] I said I would be fair, and I have said quite frankly that here is a case not of an industry entitled, from the point of view of needing protection, to receive this duty. Better to face the situation, as an hon. Member said on a previous Amendment. We who are Protectionists have never denied that cases may and probably will arise where advantage will be taken to raise the price, because there are no alternative methods of supply or because production is concentrated in a few hands. This information reached me, and reached the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). I have every reason to believe that it is completely accurate. I
have not had a chance of checking it to the extent that I should like, but I am informed that it is a matter of common knowledge. It is obvious that the excessive premiums that are being charged on lead and zinc are due to this Bill, and I am informed that the effect will be that English producers of goods that necessitate the use of these metals may lose the contracts for the supply of those goods for export.
For those reasons and many others, I think that these articles should be put into the Schedule. I am afraid that I have had to deal with this matter in a cursory manner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth and I have brought it forth, because the facts have come to our notice and because we think that it is honest and proper to put them to the House and to ask the House to make this change. We do not believe that the position as it exists will carry out the intentions of the Bill. Another reason for making the change is that the amount of Revenue that will be made is comparatively small.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The case made by the Noble Lord who has just spoken is one of a somewhat serious character. We have made it clear in previous statements on this Bill that the Government did not intend to tolerate any undue exploitation of the consumer by those who are benefiting by the imposition of the Import Duties. Certainly, if the facts are as represented by my Noble Friend —I am not calling inquestion the accuracy of his information—it seems to be a case for action. On the other hand, I would point out to the House that my Noble Friend himself has said that he has had to put his case rather hurriedly and that he has not had opportunity himself of checking the accuracy of everything that he has brought before us. In those circumstances, it seems rather difficult to ask the House to take a judicial decision when at present they have only heard one side.
The Advisory Committee which is to be set up under the Bill will probably be functioning in the course of a very short time now, and it would be better, and the most proper course in the circumstances would be, that this matter should be referred to the Advisory Committee. I have no objection to giving my Noble Friend an assurance that I will take care
that this matter is brought to the attention of the Advisory Committee at the earliest possible date. I will further say that if the facts should be shown to be as my Noble Friend has put them to the House, the Government themselves will not hesitate to take action.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I rise at once to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement which he has made. We have achieved the object which my right hon. Friend and I had in bringing forward this Amendment. It came on a minute or two sooner than I expected, and I had to hurry back to the House after my right hon. Friend had risen. I may say that I would substantiate, from information that I have received, every single word that I heard him make. I think the situation is such that it should call for precisely the kind of investigation which the Chancellor has promised should take place. The information before us is that the price of the article has been raised, beyond what it would otherwise have been, by anything from 4 to 7 per cent. That is an exceedingly serious situation, and I think I ought very briefly to put the House in possession of these further facts. Lead is very largely made into lead sheets and lead pipes. The value of pig lead is between 70 and 75 per cent. of the lead sheets and lead pipes when finished. In other words, the increase of 7 per cent. on the raw material would be equivalent to an increase of about 5 per cent. on the finished article.
The British manufacturers of the finished article have had a very considerable trade in lead sheets and pipes in neutral markets. It amounted to about £100,000 last year, and to a larger sum in the previous year. Of course, in that trade they have to meet the competition of foreign manufacturers, and clearly they are placed at a considerable differential disadvantage if they have to meet an increased expenditure on raw material amounting to as much as 5 per cent. on the price of the finished article. This is just one of those cases which we know are inherently possible in any tariff system, and neither my right hon. Friend nor I have made the least pretence to dissemble that fact, nor has anyone who is a supporter of a tariff.
All that we say is that a tariff, while in our opinion it has great advantages,
has also certain dangers, which have to be guarded against, as the Lord President of the Council has told us in some of his speeches. We understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night that he has given us an assurance that this matter will be brought before the Tariff Committee, and that the Government, if necessary, will take action. We have, therefore, entirely achieved our object, and I have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he has said. In the circumstances, the wisest plan will be to leave the matter to be dealt with by the Tariff Committee, and for that reason we do not wish the press the Amendment further to-night.

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. ALBERY: On the last Amendment which was before the House, certain allegations were made against certain industries in this country. The Amendment was a manuscript Amendment. I did not know that it was going to be moved, and I am not in a position to say anything on that subject, but I wish to say that I think it is unfortunate that such a statement should be made and the Amendment withdrawn before any other Members of the House had had an opportunity of speaking upon it.

Earl WINTERTON: I am very sorry; had I known that my hon. Friend wished to speak, I would not have asked to be allowed to withdraw the Amendment; but may I say that this Amendment was on the Paper yesterday?

Mr. ALBERY: I gladly accept the explanation of the Noble Lord. I would only say that the Britannia Works mentioned happen to be in my constituency, and that was why I raised the point.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 21, line 4, after the word "pit-props," to insert the words:
including round and partially-squared timber for use in mines.
I move this Amendment merely in order to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a definition of what is included in the term "pit-props," which is already in the Schedule.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that it is perfectly possible to identify pit-props as such, but that, when you
come to timber generally which may be used in mines, it is impossible to distinguish the use for which that timber is intended. Therefore, it would not be possible for me to accept this Amendment. The words in the Schedule apply only to wooden pit-props.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I, with the leave of the House, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended that the term "pit-prop" shall also include what is known as a pit bar? Such a bar is very often square, and it is used for placing across the roof. If we can get from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the term "pit-prop" would include a pit bar, which may be partially or wholly square, our point will be met. I may explain that a pit-prop means a prop sonic 3 or 4 or 5 feet long, and, if that term would exclude a pit bar, which is 8 or 10 or 12 feet long, it would appear that the bars would be subject to this duty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It really is just a question of what the Customs officials can distinguish when they see it. I am advised that pit bars as described by the hon. Gentleman can be distinguished by the Customs officials, and therefore would be included as pit props.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 21, line 8, at the end, insert the words
Chinchona bark."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
Scientific films, that is to say, cinematograph films exempted under the provisions of section eight of the Finance Act, 1928, from the customs duty imposed, by section three of the Finance Act, 1925.
This Amendment, as it stands on the Paper, is in line 10, but it should be in line 12, and I therefore move it in that form. It was put down in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) during the Committee stage, but it was not reached during that stage, and I therefore move it now. These scientific films were excluded from the operation of the old Films Duty, and this Amendment is merely for the purpose of maintaining that exclusion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. May I point out that no manuscript Amendment can be moved between the one which has just been carried—to insert words at the end of line 12 —and the next Amendment on the Paper—in line 12, at the end, to insert the words "Flint and bone unground and untreated"—which stands in my name?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Unfortunately, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), which is a manuscript Amendment, is connected with the Amendment which was put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in line 10.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but it was passed at line 12.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is so, but the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook is strictly relevant to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not prejudiced.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is not an Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is at a point subsequent to the Amendment which has just been carried at the end of line 12. The next Amendment on the Paper at the end of line 12 is mine. My Amendment, being at the end of line 12, cannot be out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: May I ask what is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's point of Order?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There has just been carried, while you were out of the Chair, an Amendment at the end of line 12 on page 21. It is true that that Amendment, which has just been carried, stands on the Paper as an Amendment at the end of line 10, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving it, preferred to move it at the end of line 12; and, it having been moved, accepted and passed at the end of line 12, I submit to you that it is impossible to deal with a manuscript Amendment to an earlier part of the Bill.

Mr. AMERY: May I raise this point? My Amendment is an addition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, and is connected with the same sub-
ject, namely, photographic films. I shall be equally happy to move it later.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have had nothing but manuscript Amendments all the evening, and no one knows what they arc.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is unfortunate, but this is the first one with which I have had to deal. I understand that the Government Amendment was in the wrong place, and, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is all right.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: My Amendment is all right, but that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) is all wrong.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: May I ask whether the Amendment to which the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), is referring, and which stands in his and my names, can be moved later, or is it cut out altogether?

Mr. SPEAKER: That will come later.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
celluloid base for photographic films.
My manuscript Amendment seeks to include in the Schedule a manufactured article which undoubtedly can be manufactured in this country but which at the present time is not so manufactured. It will take not only a considerable sum of capital but a considerable number of months before the necessary factories can be put up. My object, therefore, is to secure the addition of that item to the Schedule for the time being—and there are now powers for removing articles from the Schedule later on—in the interests of the photographic film industry of this country. That is a very important and considerable industry, and I urge this for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same time, I fully realise that this has been sprung on him at the last moment, and if he will assure me that the matter will receive his consideration, I feel that I cannot fairly press him actually to accept it to-night.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has admitted the difficulty in which he has placed me.
He has only just put into my hands this Amendment the bearing of which I have not been in a position to investigate. In these circumstances, it would be impossible for me to accept it but, although I cannot promise to take it into my consideration, it will be perfectly open to anybody to make representations to the Committee on the subject.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words, "Flint and bone unground and untreated."
This Amendment was not reached on the Committee stage yesterday, and it is of vital importance to the part of the country from which I come. The two commodities referred to are in the main raw materials of the pottery trade, and they come from outside this country. The pottery trade is a small trade, but it is the absolute life-blood of North Staffordshire. The coal trade itself in North Staffordshire depends on the pottery trade to no small extent, and I know of no industry which is suffering worse at present from bad trade and unemployment. Week by week we see the figures go up and more men thrown out at work. That this Bill, which is intended honestly to help trade, should hit that particular industry at its most difficult point—the cost of raw material—seems to me to be disastrous.
9.30 p.m.
Here are two materials which come almost entirely from abroad. Flint is the raw material of the earthenware body, which composes roughly speaking 25 per cent. of every piece of earthenware you use. It comes in from France, where it is collected on the seashore. A trifling royalty is paid on account of it, but the cost of that flint, which is delivered in North Staffordshire at 30s. a ton, is almost entirely made up of freight. It is brought to England in English bottoms and brought from Liverpool by canal, so that the whole cost, with the exception of the trifling royalty to the French foreshore owners, is due to the cost of transport, and goes to British people. The amount of flint we get in England is very small indeed. A certain amount comes from Dungeness, whence it is brought
overland by rail, but it is a very small proportion of the flint used. In addition to that, the other raw material which comes from abroad is bones for the use of British bone china. Bone china is very nearly half the china trade and they get the bones from South America. There is a certain amount bought locally, but it so trifling that you may say that the fine china trade and the ordinary cheap china trade of this country depend on foreign bones.
If this alteration is not made in the Bill, the effect will be that the pottery trade of North Staffordshire will be mulcted to the tune of about £18,000 a year. The amount the Treasury will get out of it should be about £15,000. If, on the other hand, this Amendment is carried, as I hope it will be, it will mean that the Treasury loses about £15,000 a year and a struggling trade will be able still to get its raw material in cheaply. MI the other trades which are in a difficult position, the iron and steel trade, the textile trades and even the Birmingham trades, are to get their raw materials in free. Their raw materials in many cases can be manufactured in this country, but we are asking here that the two raw materials of the pottery trade, which are not manufactured in this country and which are almost as nature made them, should be allowed on the Free List, so that this industry shall not be penalised at the present time by an additional tax of £18,000 a year, £15,000 of which goes to the Treasury, and the other £3,000 in enhanced prices for the small quantity of the home-produced article.
I want the House to notice that here is a chance of helping industry to cut down its overhead charges and the price at which we can sell our goods, so as to allow the industry to compete in all the neutral markets of the world, where it is a question of the smallest trifle in price which decides whether we lose contracts or not. On the other side is merely the desire to collect £15,000 more revenue. In this matter you may have a National Government in the country, but we have a national union in North Staffordshire. Every Member for North Staffordshire is at the back of this demand—Members of all parties. I am merely speaking first for them because I am the oldest Member in the House at the moment, but I am
glad to say we have also here the Member who sat for my constituency before I sat for it, who is sitting on the National side, and who is as strong a supporter of this Amendment as I am. I do hope the Government will not put us off with fair words about an appeal to the Commissioners at some future time. Let us to-day be able to send a message to the people of North Staffordshire that their industry, at any rate, is not going to be penalised by an additional tax when other industries, not, half so badly off, are escaping because they are more largely represented in this House.

Sir J. LAMB: I should like to support this as coming from the same district. It may be a small industry, but it is one that is vital to a very large area and it employs, when fully occupied, a very large number of workpeople, though unfortunately we have a great deal of unemployment at present. The flints are absolutely essential, because no other flint has been found suitable for the purpose, and they cannot be replaced from any other part of the globe. So it is not a question of these flints being superseded by any coming from the Empire. That is an impossibility. Bone is not really a primary product, but a residual, and it can only come from the place from which it is now coining, South America.

Mr. W. ALLEN: I feel that this is of vital importance to the pottery trade, which has been hit harder probably than any other by foreign competition, and in foreign markets the price is so cut that it really cannot afford to pay more. If these 10 per cent. duties are put on now, we shall be cut out in the foreign markets. I support the Amendment.

Mr. HALES: I have the greatest pleasure in associating myself with all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, as being intimately connected with the potting industry. These ingredients should be allowed to come in free in order to help us in the terrible competition with Czechoslovakia.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I find a great deal of difficulty about the Amendment as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There are two materials involved, flint and bone. Of course, the bone in which the right hon. Gentleman is interested is bone imported for manufac-
turing purposes, and the imports from foreign countries of bone of that kind do not appear to be anything like the amount which the right bon. Gentleman suggested. I find that in 1930 the total imports from foreign countries for these manufacturing purposes were only £12,000, whereas from Empire countries they amounted to £23,000. There is the further point that bones for manufacture are not used merely for the purpose of making china, but for making toothbrush handles and glue, and other purposes. The proper way to deal with it is to let the Committee have a look at it. I am not quite clear about flints. They all come from abroad. Although there is flint in this country, it is not actually used very much in the manufacture of pottery. If the right hon. Gentleman will amend his Amendment so as to make it apply to flints only, I will accept that and leave bone to be dealt with by the Committee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is only the china people who will suffer from not having the bone. I think it will be all right because, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, even if we do not get bone free now, we shall have a pretty good case before the Commissioners. I will amend my Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, he might move it in another form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 21, line 12, at the end, insert the words, "Flint unground."—[Colonel Wedgwood.]

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words "Soya beans."
A similar Amendment in Committee, unfortunately, was not reached. Last year the import of soya beans amounted to 110,000 tons, of the value of £725,000. In 1929 the figures were 205,000 tons, of the value of £2,300,000. It all comes from China, Manchuria or Japan and none from our Empire. I say that so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may feel that, whatever happens about the Amendment, it will make no difference in the matter of Imperial Preference. The Empire cannot gain by soya beans being on the Free List. The dis-
advantage of the Amendment is that it will mean a loss to the Exchequer, but against that I want the right hon. Gentleman to set the disadvantage to the industry if the product is taxed, and the burden that it will impose on the seed crushing industry. We have a considerable export trade in the manufactured product of soya beans. Exports of meal and oil amount each year to between £800,000 and £1,400,000. If this tax was put on soya beans, there would be a great danger of losing sonic of this export trade. The Japanese in the last few years have been especially active in seed crushing, and there is a great danger that, with a 10 per cent. duty, a great deal of our export trade would he lost. Another direction in which this tax would work great hardship is towards the agricultural industry. Soya beans are used extensively for the feeding of stock. The stock raiser is not in the position of the industrialist cited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in the pottery trade, whose raw material is taxed but whose finished product is also taxed. Beef conies into the country untaxed while the raw material would come in taxed. For that reason I would ask the Chancellor to regard the matter from the position of the farmer.
The price of soya bean cake has risen in an alarming manner in the last few months. In July the price was £7 15s. a ton, in November, owing to our going off the Gold Standard, it had risen to £8 9s. a ton and yesterday the price was 28 17s. 6d. a ton, so that without this 10 per cent. duty soya bean cake has already risen by £1 2s. The production of soya bean products in this country amounts to 77,000 tons, and the actual tax upon the industry, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept the Amendment will be something like £65,000.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have had a life-long experience in this industry, and I would have liked very much to have dealt with the whole case, because I feel very strongly that not only soya beans but the whole of the oil-bearing seeds and kernels imported into this country from any source whatever should have been placed upon the Free List. It came as a great surprise to
the industry when they saw that linseed and cotton seed had been placed upon the Free List but that soya beans had not. The market for oil-bearing seeds and kernels is a world one. No European country has an import duty on soya beans or on any oil-seeds whatever. As I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make a statement relative to soya beans and as there are other important amendments to come before the House, I will not proceed further, but will formally second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I ask the House to accept the Amendment, which is a reasonable one.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I beg to move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:

"Bristles.
Piassava.
Mexican or Tampico fibre.
Whisk, Mexican or Italian."

I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us the fibres which are mentioned in the Amendment. Whisk is almost entirely produced abroad, Mexican or Tampico fibre is entirely produced abroad, and the only fibre about which there is any question about getting from the British Empire is Piassava. With regard to bristles, I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already granted the concession under another heading. These are the raw materials of the brush industry, which is at a very low ebb just now, because most people are using foreign brushes. There are 40,000,000 people in this country all of whom brush their hair, their boots, and, possibly, their teeth, and therefore we ought to use British brushes. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow the raw materials to come in free of duty.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have been asked to take this course by my constituents in Lancashire. The brush industry is a very important industry there, and a great deal of work is done for export. I understand that a good deal of painting is done without brushes, but still the manufacture of brushes is an important industry in this country.

Mr. LECKIE: Knowing something of the brush trade, I realise what a serious matter the 10 per cent. duty will be to the brush-makers of this country, superimposed, as it is, upon practically a 40 per cent. increase which they are now paying for foreign material on account of the fall from the Goad Standard. At the present time the British manufacturers have to buy their goods from foreign countries. The raw materials are not produced in any of the Dominions or Colonies. The 40 per cent. added to the increased cost owing to going off the Gold Standard will make it a very serious matter for the industry to carry on. The brush trade has a large export business. It is perhaps not a very large trade compared with a good many other trades, but a large proportion of the brushes is exported, and if the manufacturers are handicapped by a 50 per cent. increase in the cost of raw material, it will seriously interfere with their foreign trade.

Major PROCTER: I support the Amendment, because if adopted it will be the means of providing a considerable amount of work in my constituency as well as finding work for a large number of brush-makers throughout the country. The brush-making industry rejoices in the hope which is being given by the 10 per cent. tax upon the importation of foreign brushes. When I tell the House that last year 4,176,000 dozen brushes were imported into this country, hon. Members will understand that the British industry is very desirous of capturing this trade. None of the fibres mentioned in the Schedule can be purchased from the Empire. They have to be bought from abroad. When our brush-makers have to go into neutral markets, if the Amendment does not go through, they will have to bear the added penalty of 10 per cent. and therefore I hope that the Amendment will he accepted.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: The bristles of Piassava are the raw material for the blind of this country who make brushes, and in my own town several scores of blind people are using this raw material in order to make brushes. Therefore, I support the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment. As far as bristles are concerned, they are already covered by the
Amendment which has been moved in the case of animal hair. In regard to the other material, although the particular individual fibres may not be produced within the Empire, there are other fibres which are produced within the Empire. The total imports into this country of fibres for brush-making from the Empire was, in 1930, £140,000, against about £165,000 from foreign countries, so that it is fairly well divided between foreign countries and Empire countries. It must be remembered that if the brush industry is going to have its own protection in the circumstances, this, too, is a matter which ought to be referred to the committee, and not judged by this House.

Amendment negatived.

Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I beg to move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
Timber logs not exceeding seven feet in length and not exceeding fourteen inches in diameter for the manufacture of wood pulp for paper Making.
This Amendment was on the Order Paper yesterday, but was not reached. The claim for the exemption of this particular material from the import duties is precisely the same as that applied to sparta grass. In so far as the claims for this particular material are not identical, they are at least equally strong. Wood pulp, it will be observed, is already in the First Schedule, and wood pulp is a semi-manufactured material from the material defined by this Amendment. If it were desired to encourage by this Measure the fullest possible use of our own labour, we should be permitted to import this particular material without any duty whatever, and then no doubt impose a 10 per cent. duty upon the semi-finished product which is pulp, and then, perhaps, a rather higher duty upon the completely finished product which is the finished paper. To import the semi-finished product, which is pulp, entirely free and to place a 10 per cent. duty upon the raw material, seems to me to be an entire inversion of the principle upon which I thought this Measure was founded, namely, that of supporting and encouraging to the fullest possible extent the industries and the labour of this country. I know that there are very few industries in this country that utilise raw material of this kind,
nevertheless it is considerably used in certain mills and if it is riot placed upon the Free List it will create a considerable amount of unemployment. I can only believe that on account of the very small extent to which this material is used in this country, an oversight has been made, as it could never have been intended to permit a semi-finished product to come in free, whilst placing a duty upon the raw material.

Sir W. SMILES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already explained on another Amendment that it is impossible to distinguish articles by the use to which they are intended to be put. They can only be distinguished by the Customs officers if they are readily recognised in a particular form. In view of this Amendment I made inquiries in the Customs whether logs for the purpose of manufacturing wood pulp for paper making were recognisable. I was informed by one of the officers that they were, but when I asked what the dimensions were, the dimensions that were given to me were entirely different from those that are given in the Amendment. As there appears to be considerable doubt in regard to the matter, the best thing would he to refer it to the Advisory Committee.

Mr. REMER: I should like to say a few words to satisfy my hon. Friend, as I am a member of the timber trade. Every one of the pitprops which are imported free can be used as the raw material for pulp making. Therefore, there is not the slightest need for any anxiety. So far as the timber trade is concerned, I have been in consultation with them and, owing to very many complications that have taken place in the matter, they are doubly anxious that it should be left entirely to the Advisory Committee and that the whole question should be decided by them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I beg to-move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
Cork, raw and granulated, cork shavings and waste.
The facts relating to the Amendment are probably known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Cork is the bark of Spanish oak. It is a raw material
which cannot be grown in the United Kingdom or the Empire. There is considerable manufacture of it, but it does not compete with or take the place of any other article produced in this country. In granulated shavings and waste forms it is only sufficiently manufactured to clear the impurities which are of no value, and to supply the quantities shapes and sizes required for trade. In my constituency a new industry has arisen as result of a breakdown of some cork-making machinery. The material got churned into something resembling fibre, which it is difficult to describe. It is a material which will be invaluable for cushions, bedding and upholstery. It has the special advantage that cockroaches, fleas and other insects from which we suffer die instantly they are ex-posed to it. There is considerable competition for cork in Spain and Portugal. Therefore, I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to admit these articles as raw materials of vital importance to British manufacture.

Mr. WALLACE: I beg to second the Amendment.
10.0 p.m.
I will spare the House from hearing a very good speech. I have two minds on the subject, because it seems to me that a Government which attempts to push through an economic revolution of this kind in a few days ought to have long speeches inflicted upon it. However, as the House desires to get on to the Third Reading, I will cut down my remarks. I am under a deep debt of gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, by giving way on hemp to-night, got me out of a very difficult position with my constituents, because I had to vote in the wrong Lobby, according to the advice I received from the Whip. I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman's heart was touched by the brilliant speech from the Junior Member for Aberdeen (Miss Horsbrugh). I trust that to-night his mind may be further impressed by a few plain facts from business men. I will not elaborate the arguments in support of the Amendment, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Colonel Crookshank) has stated clearly
that the raw material which we are now discussing cannot be found within the confines of the Empire. It is very essential to the cork industries in this country that this raw material should come in free of duty, and I am hopeful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Amendment, because I am sure that his main consideration in a matter of this kind is not revenue but the provision of employment. One may get revenue from a tax on raw materials, and that will be on the credit side, but there will be the debit side when the manufacturers who are using the raw materials find that in competition with the neutral markets of the world they are cut out by the fact that their raw material has a duty imposed upon it of 10 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] If hon. Members are agreed, I shall be glad to sit down.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to be able to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RAMSDEN: I beg to move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
Ramie, not dressed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been so generous in his treatment of the textile industry that I would ask him to go one small step further and to make a concession in regard to a raw material which is used by a small industry which, unfortunately, has to import the whole of its raw material from some foreign country. It is more necessary now than ever that this fabric should be placed on the Free List, considering that 90 per cent. of the goods that are produced from it are exported either to some European country or to the United States of America.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to move, in page 21, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
Pure pressed technical olive oil.
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give way on this particular point.

Mr. ALBERY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. It is not possible to tell this olive oil from any other olive oil.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECOND SCREDDLE.—(Recommendation and allowance of drawback.)

Amendments made—

In page 21, line 16, after the word "drawback," insert the words:
of any duties which are chargeable under Part I of this Act or which the committee recommend should be so chargeable.

In line 17, leave out from the first word "of," to the word "may," in line 19, and insert instead thereof the words:
any class or description of goods.

In line 22, leave out the words "a drawback in respect of that duty," and insert instead thereof the words:
the drawback hereinafter provided in respect of goods of that class or description.

In line 24, after the word "Schedule," insert the words:
in relation to goods of any class or description.

In line 25, leave out the words "affected by the additional duty," and insert instead thereof the word:
concerned.

In line 30, leave out the words "Drawback in respect of an additional duty," and insert instead thereof the words:
The drawback aforesaid.

In line 37, leave out the words "amount of the additional duty," and insert instead thereof the words:
aggregate amount of the duty or duties chargeable as aforesaid which is."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): The circumstances are such that the observations I propose to make must necessarily be brief.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I desire to ask whether the hon. Member is rising to move the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already put the Question.

Earl WINTERTON: I was under the impression that the hon. Member was rising from the Front Bench to move the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. FOOT: The noble Lord will no doubt appreciate the fact that I hold my Free Trade convictions as sincerely as he holds his Protectionist convictions and nothing has arisen in the course of these Debates which has led me to modify the convictions I had before the discussion commenced. We are told that this marks a change in our fiscal policy. I can only contrast what is happening now with what happened when the great fiscal revolution was carried through some 80 or 90 years ago, a revolution carried through by famous men who rose to the height of their great argument. I contrast those proceedings with what is now taking place in reversal of that policy. [Interruption.] Look back to those famous Debates lasting for nearly a generation in which some of the most celebrated men of this country were won over against their predilections and training to the policy of Free Trade and contrast them with the proceedings we have witnessed in the progress of this Measure through the House.
I have now only time, in accordance with historic precedents of this House, to put on record on behalf of my friends and myself our protest against this Measure. I make that protest in association with what has been said by the Home Secretary whose speech I unreservedly and unrepentantly support. [Interruption.] We have no part or lot in this Measure. We recognise that it means the breaking of many ties with those whom we have been associated in this House. I have here no complaints to make against my Liberal colleagues, but I am entitled to say that they do not speak for organised Liberalism outside this House, nor do they speak for the great body of Free Trade opinion. [Interruption.] There are many who laugh at me now who if it had wit been for the support of Free Traders in their constituencies would never have got within a hundred miles of Palace Yard. [Interruption.]
In regard to the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade, he used the argument that the policy of the Government and the policy of the Home Secretary, if examined carefully and analytically, were almost indistinguishable. If
anyone else but the President of the Board of Trade had used that argument I should have said it was sophistry. Burke in his "Thoughts on the present Discontents," said:
Whilst no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet, on the whole, light and darkness were tolerably distinguishable.
The President of the Board of Trade said that this policy was not permanent. We accept that. We desire to put it definitely on record that this policy is not permanent. The right hon. Gentleman, however, suggested that after a few years, we may on considering the weight of argument and counter-argument, advantage and disadvantage reverse the policy. No one knows better than the President of the Board of Trade the difficulties we shall have to meet. If you once put on a tariff it does not become a matter of argument in getting free, but of fighting the vested interests which have been created, and the experience of the world is that once a country has taken to tariffs it has had to sweat blood before it can get rid of them.
The first test of any Measure is its effect upon the poor and those who are nearest the poverty line. We oppose this Measure on very simple grounds. We are against this Bill because it taxes food and because food taxes are taxes according to the needs and not according to the means. We oppose it because it will raise the cost of living to the poorest of our people. It will increase indirect taxation as compared with direct taxation. It. will tax raw materials, and therefore increase the cost of production, thus limiting our competitive powers in foreign markets, and causing increased unemployment. We oppose it because it looks in the wrong direction. It looks in the direction of national independence and national self-sufficiency. [Interruption.] It looks in the direction of national self-sufficiency, and against this doctrine of isolation we put what we believe to be the only basis of the wellbeing and the peace of the world, and that is interdependence and international co-operation. [Interruption.]
I have only a few moments to say this to hon. Members: After all, the power is with you. You are a very big majority. The sentence is going to fall upon Free Trade, and I want upon this occasion,
in a few words, to say that Free Trade, even if it were a prisoner, has a right to speak for itself. [Interruption.] We shall at any rate make this lf, because of the interruption, I were prevented from making that statement here, it would not assuage feeling outside. For 80 years Free Trade has placed us among the foremost nations of the world. It has made available for the people of this little crowded island all the resources of five Continents and the supplies of the whole world. It has enabled us to build up the biggest mercantile marine in the world—[Interruption.] Finally, in the time of the nation's greatest trial, during the War, Free Trade stood us in great stead and empowered us to carry our burdens, and not only ours but the burdens of our Protectionist allies as well. It has established for our workers the highest standard of living; it has given us clean politics; and it has enabled us, I think better than any other country in the world, to sustain and survive the shock and distress of the economic disaster through which the nations have had to pass. I make that claim for Free Trade. It is quite certain, of course, that I am speaking against the great majority in the House. I can only express my regret that in the year of grace 1932, when we are celebrating the centenary of the great emancipating Measure, the Reform Act, we are now passing a Bill which, I think, will again place upon us ancient shackles and put upon our shoulders a yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I seem suddenly to have stepped into the middle of a domestic quarrel. I hope that the combatants will for one moment listen to an argument against a policy which I oppose from the other side of the House. It. seems to us that, as the Debate has progressed upon this Bill, both in Committee and on Report, more and more there has been developed the divergencies which in fact exist in the National party—divergencies which are all due to a policy which has not been thought out. The Home Secretary himself, who was one of the Cabinet Committee which investigated this problem, went into the Lobby against the Government because he was of opinion that no proper inquiry had been held into the matter. We feel that,
apart altogether from the merits of this policy, it is a policy that has been pitch-forked on to the country without the proper inquiry or investigation that was promised.
Indeed the whole temper of the House has been that of people engaged in what one might call the "catch-as-catch-can" method of tariffs. Hon. Members rising one after another have been anxious on behalf of their constituents to have either excluded or included particular trades in which some particular vested interests can be shown. It seems to me to indicate no science except the science of opportunism. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, I thought rather naively, it is really, after all, only a matter of expediency. It seems to us that the whole of this policy is mere expediency as regards particular trades. It is, in fact, the last desperate throw of the gambler. If it fails as we believe it will the National party, whether Liberal or Conservative have no other policy to put in its place.
We have been accused during this Debate of having no alternative ourselves. I think that everybody who has the intelligence to read the "Daily Herald" must appreciate that we have a policy whether hon. Members agree with it or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you not put it forward?"] If the hon. Member will take the opportunity of attending meetings in other places where there is more time, he can always hear it. The Lord President of the Council himself, when he was on this side of the House, and when he was, perhaps, in two minds as to a tariff policy, has often said that it was not the duty of the Opposition to put forward policies but to criticise. But I take this opportunity of pointing out the fundamental difference upon which our opposition to this Measure is based. It is based upon a fundamental difference of view as to the economic policy which should lie behind industry and finance.
The economics of capitalism depend, according to those who put forward that view, upon the earning of large profits by individuals in order that those profits may be re-invested in industry and that capital may thus flow into industry for reconstruction or for the setting up of new industries. That is to say the
division of the earnings of industry must be so made that there is a sufficient surplus for those who have capital, after spending all they require, to be able to re-invest what is left in industry. That is the reason why under the present Bill the working class are to bear a greater burden of taxation because, as has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, industry cannot afford the present heavy direct taxation. Those who believe in the capitalist, theory believe that that taxation takes away too much of the profits of the capitalist and does not allow him sufficient to re-invest in industry. For exactly the same reason the Bill aims at putting up the prices at which commodities are sold in this country, in order that there may be a larger margin for the manufacturer and the capitalist in this country in the way of profits.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: And the workers.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We shall wait to see if this country is to be an exception to the rule that in protected countries wage levels are low. [HON. MEMBERS: "America!"] The hon. Member who says "What about America?" knows quite well that conditions in America and in Europe are completely different. We believe it is this uneven distribution of the receipts of industry between the producers and capital that will be rendered more uneven by the imposition of tariffs and that that very inequality is creating at the present time the lack of consuming power from which the world is suffering. The whole argument, as we see it, behind the policy of the present Bill is to reduce the standard of the workers and increase the standard of profits. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Member who says "No," I am sure, cannot really mean it, because I know he will agree with me that, according to his theory, it is essential to have a sufficiently large margin of profit in order to provide capital for industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that got to do with it?"] It has to do with it to this extent, that it is said by all capitalists that industry is suffering because there is not the necessary capital forthcoming for the purposes of industrial recorganisation and reform, and to achieve that they desire to increase profits in order that there may be more available. [An HON. MEMBER: "And wages‡"] The hon. Member who
says "And wages" will appreciate that when two people have to share a sum of money, you cannot increase both their shares.
We disagree fundamentally with that theory of economics, and we believe that the time has come when both the finances and the industries of this country must be put upon a footing of State control and State regulation. One hon. Member opposite said to-day that he appreciated the point of view that you could either have complete individual control of industry or complete social control, and I am glad there was one Member in the House who did appreciate that point of view. We take the point that you have got to have complete social control of industry and not complete individual control of industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Room 13?"] I am sorry that I have not the time to answer all the interruptions, but I must allow the Chancellor time for his speech. We believe that it is wrong so to try to work the system of capitalism that you have to rely upon the whim of private enterprise to supply the fresh capital for your industries, or that you have to entice that fresh capital by the offer either of Protection or of large profits before you can draw it into industry.
If the State is made responsible for the supply of capital, it can then organise that supply so that it is available where it is wanted in the best interests, not of one section of the community, not of one single business in a section, but, of the community as a whole; and until that is done we believe that mere tinkering with Free Trade or with Tariff Reform is going to be of no value whatsoever in redeeming the position of this country or any other in the trade of the world. After all, although this particular Measure may give a fillip to some industry here or there, may lead to apparent prosperity in one particular isolated spot, I should have thought that by now it was past doubt that any clog of this sort put upon international trade was bound in the long run to decrease the consuming power of the world.
10.30 p.m.
Let me read a passage which is quoted in this month's "Monthly Letter" of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, a passage which comes from a report which is signed by more than 200 distinguished
economists all over the world. [Laughter.] I was waiting for that laughter. Let me give one or two names in Great Britain so that hon. Members may laugh again. There are Sir Arthur Balfour, Lord Bradbury, Mr. Goodenough, Mr. Montagu Norman, Mr. Walter Leaf, and many others of the same character. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the date?"] It is 1926. [Laughter.] If hon. Members think that the whole theory of world trade changes between 1926 and 1931, I am sorry for them. They said this:
Too many States, in pursuit of false ideals of national interest, have imperilled their own welfare and lost sight of the common interests of the world by basing their commercial relations on the economic folly which treats all trading as a form of war. There can be no recovery in Europe till politicians in all territories, old and new, realise that trade is not war, but a process of exchange, that in time of peace our neighbours are our customers, and that their prosperity is a condition of our own wellbeing. If we check their dealings, their power to pay their debts diminishes and their power to purchase our goods is reduced.
That was why these distinguished economists desired to make it abundantly clear that the imposition of import duties by a country could do nothing to help the trade of that country.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What do they say to-day?

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman, who always knows everything, can ask them.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) interrupts much too often.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Let me put one more point to the House. One of the many arguments which is put behind this Bill is the desire to increase production here or in the Colonies, but nobody has yet told us from whence, from the point of view of the world, the consumption is coming for these commodities. Let me take the case which occurred last night, that of hemp. Hemp has hitherto been imported from the Philippines to this country. It is suggested that by means of this tariff we can grow sisal and replace it. What is to happen to the hemp growers?

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Hemp comes from Russia.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not mind where it comes from, but last night we were told by the experts that it comes from the Philippines. It does not matter for my argument. What is to happen to the growers of hemp? They form, after all, a potential market for our manufactured goods. Take any article you like that is imported into this country; if you cut off the supply and create a, new one, when already it is admitted that throughout the world there is an excess of raw materials and commodities of all kinds, you are not going to cure the trouble of under-consumption by increasing production still further. That is one of the reasons why we believe that this Measure cannot in the least tackle the real difficulties with which we and the world are faced, and that until this country decides that the system of private enterprise under which it is at present working has become out of date and unable to cope with the present situation in world trade, it will fail to find a solution. When the country has got sick, as it will, of this Government and of the tariffs and of the increase in the cost of food and the cost of living, it will turn Again to the sound principles of Socialism.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No greater contrast could be imagined than that between the two speeches to which we have just listened. The first was a last, passionate, despairing cry from one who is convinced that he has seen the end of Free Trade. I shall make no further allusion to that speech, but. I turn at once to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). That was not the speech of a Free Trader, it was the speech of a man whose alternative to Protection is said to be Socialism, but who sees in this Bill an opportunity for repeating once more all the efforts he has made on previous occasions to stir up class animosity and to suggest that a. Measure brought in with the support and approval of representatives of all parties in this State—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—has as its underlying motive only the desire to make profits for the capitalists and to lower the standards and wages of the working people. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us a quotation from an article which, he says, was signed by a number of economists in 1926. What is the use of quoting 1926 in 1932? So far as I could judge from the ex-
tracts that he read to us, there was nothing in that document to which any of us would take exception, but, so far from being Free Traders to-day, many of those who then signed that document have realised that in the changed conditions since 1926 it is absolutely necessary, if this country is to regain its prosperity, that it should also regain its freedom to control its own affairs.
Anybody who has followed the discussions on this Bill from the beginning must, I think, have been impressed by one thing above all others, and that is the extraordinary ease and smoothness with which it has passed through all its stages. I have had some considerable experience in piloting large, and in some cases controversial, Bills through this House, but I have never seen any case where a Bill that was even comparable to this in magnitude has gone through with so little opposition and with so much general agreement from all parties in the House. [Laughter.] I hear hon. Members opposite laughing. They say they are only small in numbers, and that is perfectly true, and I do not underrate that factor in the situation; but I could not help observing, as I sat here day after day, that the proportion of the party opposite who were present, small as that party is, was even smaller. For the first time since this Bill appeared the benches behind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are filled. For many hours I have seen only two or three Members there and I could not help being forced to the conclusion that, whatever they might say in the vehemence of their opposition to us, at heart they are profoundly thankful that the subject is going to be taken out of the field of controversy, and that they feel that in their official policy they are out of harmony with the real sentiments which most of them hold.
That is not surprising, because every British working man is at heart a Protectionist. He has been brought up, he has been trained, to believe that in this naughty world his best chance of obtaining the standards of life to which he attaches such importance is to get some protection against the competition of workers in other countries who either do not attach the same importance to or have not been able to attain to the standards which he has got here.
All these weary years he has seen his standard of life gradually being lowered and in danger, and threatened by depression. He said to himself: "Well, the party who said that they could represent me have had their trial and they have failed utterly and completely. I will try the other solution. It has been adopted in principle by my own trade union for generations past." It is absolutely useless for hon. Members to go on trying to rattle the dry bones of forgotten controversies on this subject. I would like to remind them of the oft-quoted pronouncement of Abraham Lincoln on the general art of fooling the people:
You may fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
[interruption.] They will not succeed, because the people of his country have fully realised that the Government have set their mind to helping them, that they have already saved them from the miseries that were endured by Germany and Austria in 1923, and that they are going to protect their standard in the only way they can be protected, by the Measure which is before the House tonight. We know very well that the greatest efforts will be made by the party opposite to represent that this is a threat to the cost of living and to the wages of the people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not scruple last night to try to twist words which I had used, out of their natural meaning, to make them mean something which they were never intended to mean and which the hon. and learned Genleman must have known they did not mean.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I read out a passage from its context and with its context from the OFFICIAL REPORT last night. The House could judge of what it meant, and did judge.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman used his forensic ingenuity, not only to read out a passage from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but to make his own comments upon it. This is the passage from the speech of mine:
If we cast our minds back again to 12 months ago, what farmer in February of last year could possibly have expected that to-day he would see given to him not only a certain 10 per cent., but also a possible
additional duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February 1932; col. 1602, Vol. 261.]
Was it not perfectly clear to the House at the time that what I was saying was that the farmer was being given a certain 10 per cent., plus an additional duty. That is not what the hon. and learned Gentleman read in it. He read in it that I was promising the farmer a certain 10 per cent. increase in the price of his articles.

Mr. LANSBURY: What is the benefit to the farmer?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain to the House how the farmer is to get 10 per cent., except by increased prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have explained that on another occasion. On this occasion I will say that the hon. and learned Gentleman deliberately put a false construction —[Interruption]— on what I said. I want to say this further. It is widely recognised, not only in this country, but elsewhere, that the only way in which the return of world prosperity can come is by a rise in the price of primary commodities, and, in my opinion, that rise will not now long be delayed. After it comes, we must expect that in due course it will be followed by a rise in the retail prices of commodities, and, therefore, we have in front of us a coming rise in prices. Although I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite will seek to attribute that rise to the operation of this Measure—[HON. MEMDERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I say that the people of this country will understand that we have carefully designed this Measure to take care that the cost of living does not rise to a greater extent than the figures which have been endured without serious hardship during the last 18 months or two years; but we have at the same time, by taking measures to increase employment, put our working people into a position to stand the coming rise.
The Bill has not undergone any very considerable changes since it first made its appearance in this House, but I think that, so far as it has been altered, the alterations have been to the good, and the Bill is now a better one than when it was first introduced. I should like to say a word or two about the alterations that have been made. I think that the
most important is the fact that additional powers and responsibilities have been cast upon the Advisory Committee. If I recollect aright, I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that the success or failure of the Bill would depend very largely upon the action of the Advisory Committee, and certainly, if that was so then, it is still more so now, since we have added to their responsibilities and their duties. The fact, however, that the Committee will have the task of deciding to recommend, not merely additions to the Free List, but also subtractions from the Free List, has enabled us to make very considerable additions to the articles which will come in free of duty. I am well aware that the additions have not pleased everybody, and that there are hon. Members who would have liked to see further additions which are not today to be found in the Bill. On the whole, however, I believe that the list as it stands to-day approximates very nearly to the general sense of the House, and the fact that it is not a permanent and rigid provision, but that the list can in future be added to or subtracted from after careful examination of all the necessary data by the Advisory Committee, has, I am sure, removed many anxieties, and has made hon. Members feel that, if mistakes have indeed been committed, it is not too late to redress them in the future.
There are two points on which I would like to say a word, because I am aware that they have been insufficiently discussed in the course of the passage of the Bill through Committee and Report. The first is the presence of newsprint upon the Free List. The position about newsprint is that there is a considerable import from Empire countries, there is a much larger manufacture at home, and there is a comparatively small import from foreign countries. The capacity of the home mills is considerably greater than their present output, and I have no doubt that they could supply the whole of what now comes from abroad. If we looked at these facts alone, I think there is no doubt that the newsprint would not have found its way into the Free List, but this is one of the cases where other considerations came in besides purely economic ones. We have the fact that there are in the country a large number of newspapers, commonly called
independent newspapers, because they do not belong to one of the great proprietary combines, which made strong representations to us that newsprint should be allowed in free. Their view was that the prices which they have to pay for newsprint were regulated very largely by the fact that there was this comparatively small foreign import into this country, and they represented to us that if a duty were put on these foreign imports they would be at the mercy of the home-producing mills and that in their position, when they were finding it extremely difficult to maintain their independence, that independence might be lost to them altogether.
I am not saying that those fears are well-founded. What I do say is that we did attach very great importance to the preservation of the independence of a large number of newspapers through the country, that we did not wish to do anything hastily which might imperil that independence, and we thought, therefore, it was better that this matter should not be finally decided by the House but that it should be left to the committee, after a certain amount of experience and after going into the question thoroughly, to make to the Government in due course whatever recommendations appeared to them wise. That was the reason why newsprint, which was mentioned as the only manufactured article included in the list, was left in what might appear to the House an anomalous position.
There is another point which was not adequately discussed in Committee, and on which the Amendments were unfortunately out of order on the Report stage. That has reference to the Clause which deals with shipbuilding. I know many of my hon. Friends have felt that there was inadequate explanation as to why the shipbuilding industry was put in this exceptional position, so different from that of other industries. There, again, we had to consider that the industry was in an exceptional position as compared with other industries. Not only is it in a state of unparalleled depression, but it is an industry which is continuously in competition on the high seas with vessels from other countries which are frequently subsidised or assisted by their respective Governments in one way or another. Furthermore, we had to consider that our shipbuilding yards, which
had such great and glorious days in the past, and which are now almost empty and deserted, have to fight their way against shipyards of foreign countries which have the benefit of such freedom as we propose to give them in the Bill. Hon. Members may well say that even so, why take this particular method of giving them the relief or freedom which we desire to give them? Because it was administratively convenient. It would have been a very much more difficult matter if we had had to distinguish between some goods and other goods which were coming into the shipbuilding yards, and the method we adopted in the Bill was found to be much simpler and to give less trouble both to the Department and to the industry.
I only want to say, further, that if it had been in order to discuss on the Report stage the Amendment which is upon the Paper, under which the freedom of any particular articles required for the purposes of shipbuilding yards was to be reviewed by the committee, I should not have been at all unwilling to consider some such proposal. It was not possible, but I want to say this now. The Government, of course, do not mean that this privileged position should be in any way abused by the shipbuilding yards, and I am sure they have no intention of doing anything of the kind, because even now they buy between 90 and 100 per cent. of their materials from British sources. But, of course, the position will be very carefully watched, and, if there should come to the notice of the Government

any case of what I might call abuse, the Government would not hesitate to amend the Clause.

The verdict that is going to be pronounced upon the Bill will not be pronounced to-night. The ultimate judgment upon this Measure will be the one that will be pronounced after experience of its working. We can hardly expect that so great a change as this, covering such a vast field, can he effected in a short time without here and there making a mistake, but on the whole I can say that we have implanted in the Bill itself the machinery by which those mistakes can be corrected, and I believe, when experience has been gained, the ultimate judgment will he that this was a practical working Measure, carefully designed to effect its purpose and, on the whole, successful in its working. When some day the historian comes to set on record his view of the events of February, 1932, I believe he will point to that date as one of the landmarks in the strange eventful history of our race. I believe he will applaud and admire the courage and the foresight of this country in shaking herself free from her past troubles, and in taking up a new career hand in hand with the sister countries of the Empire, the central figure of a great economic confederation wide enough and strong enough to stand any shocks from which it may have to suffer in the future.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 442; Noes, 62.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Browne, Captain A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Buchan, John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Albery, Irving James
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Alexander, Sir William
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burghley, Lord


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Burnett, John George


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Burton, Colonel Henry Waiter


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Blinded, James
Butt, Sir Alfred


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Borodale, Viscount
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Apsley, Lord
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Boulton, W. W.
Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Atkinson, Cyril
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cassels, James Dale


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Castlereagh, Viscount


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Bracken, Brendan
Castle Stewart, Earl


Balniel, Lord
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Broadbent, Colonel John
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chalmers, John Rutherford


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Gower, Sir Robert
Llewellin, Major John J.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Chotzner, Alfred James
Granville, Edgar
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Christie, James Archibald
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)


Clarke, Frank
Graves, Marjorie
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Clarry, Reginald George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Greene, William P. C.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Grimston, R. V.
Lymington, Viscount


Collins, Sir Godfrey
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Colman, N. C. D.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Colville, Major David John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Conant, R. J. E.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cooke, Douglas
Hales, Harold K.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Copeland, Ida
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
McEwen, J. H. F.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
McKie, John Hamilton


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hanbury, Cecil
McLean, Major Alan


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hanley, Dennis A.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Craven-Ellis William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harbord, Arthur
Magnay, Thomas


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hartington, Marquess of
Maitland, Adam


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hartland, George A.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Croom-Johnson, R. p.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Cross, R. H.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Crossley, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Martin, Thomas B.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Davison, Sir William Henry
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Meller, Richard James


Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hepworth, Joseph
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Denville, Alfred
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Dickie, John p.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Milne, Charles


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Dixon, Ht. Hon. Herbert
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Donner, P. W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Doran, Edward
Hornby, Frank
Mitcheson, G. G.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Drewe, Cedric
Horobin, Ian M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Moreing, Adrian C.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Howard, Tom Forrest
Morgan, Robert H.


Duggan, Hubert John
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Dunglass, Lord
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Eady, George H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Morrison, William Shephard


Eales, John Frederick
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Eastwood, John Francis
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.
Munro, Patrick


Edge, Sir William
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Iveagh, Countess of
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nicholson, O. w. (Westminster)


Elmley, Viscount
Jennings, Roland
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
North, Captain Edward T.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Nunn, William


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
O'Connor, Terence James


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Ker, J. Campbell
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Everard, W. Lindsay
Kimball, Lawrence
Ormiston, Thomas


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Fermoy, Lord
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Knobworth, Viscount
Patrick, Colin M.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Knight, Holford
Peake, Captain Osbert


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Pearson, William G.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peat, Charles U.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Penny, Sir George


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Law, Sir Alfred
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Ganzoni, Sir John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Leckie, J. A.
Potter, John


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leigh, Sir John
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Glossop, C. W. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Purbrick, R.


Gluckstein, Louis Hallo
Levy, Thomas
Pybus, Percy John


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Goff, Sir Park
Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Goldie, Noel B.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)




Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ramsden, E.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Rankin, Robert
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Remer, John H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Rentoul, Sir. Gervais S.
Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Warrender, Sir victor A. G.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Soper, Richard
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Robinson, John Roland
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E,
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Rosbotham, S. T.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Ross, Ronald D.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stones, James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Russett, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Storey, Samuel
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Strauss, Edward A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Major Isidore
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Salt, Edward W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wise, Alfred R.


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Womersley, Walter James


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Summersby, Charles H,
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Sutcliffe, Harold
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Templeton, William P.



Scone, Lord
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Selley, Harry R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Captain Margesson and Mr.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thompson, Luke
Shakespeare.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (poplar, South)
Harris, Sir Percy
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hicks, Ernest George
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bernays, Robert
Holdsworth, Herbert
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hopkinson, Austin
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McKeag, William



Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Graham.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Darlington Corporation, which was presented on the 2nd day of February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Sedgley Urban District Council, which was presented on the 2nd day of February and published, be approved."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.